Justice and Truth in Political Discourse

Since the Watergate scandal, campaign finance reform has been the focus of a great deal of national attention. Legislation has attempted to limit the amount that individuals or various entities may contribute to candidates or spend on political advertising or campaigns. Although the public generally supports campaign finance reform, reforms implemented thus far have not been effective in appreciably reducing campaign costs and the role of large contributions. Reform of campaign finance presents difficult political and legal problems. Campaign contributions may promote individual or special interests that may conflict with the common good. Because of the need to finance costly campaigns, elected officials tend to give more attention to major contributors. This provides these well-financed interests disproportionate access to public officials. Such disproportionate access makes it probable that these interests will have greater influence in the making of laws and the process of government. Consequently, the interests of the rich and otherwise more powerful tend to be promoted, perhaps at the expense of the less powerful and the common good. Campaign expenditures have proved to be even more difficult to regulate than contributions. The First Amendment has been among the most serious obstacles to campaign finance reform. In Buckley v. Valeo, the United States Supreme Court invalidated portions of the Federal Election Campaign Act Amendments of 1974. The Court held that the Act's expenditure limitations negatively impacted political speech and could not be upheld unless supported by a compelling state interest. Since no compelling state interest was found, the expenditure limits were found invalid. However, the contribution limits were valid since they involved only "marginal restriction" upon speech and could be justified by the state's interest in eliminating corruption or the appearance of corruption