This month marks the 49th anniversary of Buckley v. Valeo – the Supreme Court’s first major case about money in politics. In that 1976 decision, the Supreme Court held that contributing and spending money in campaigns and elections is a form of expression protected by the First Amendment. It struck down limits on spending that had been passed on a bipartisan basis by Congress and signed into law by the President.
To justify this result, the Court offered an empirical hypothesis: if limits were allowed to be set on campaign spending, this would not only narrow the size of the audience that candidates could reach, but also would diminish the diversity and quality of the ideas in circulation. According to the Court’s hypothesis:
“A restriction on the amount of money a person or group can spend on political communication during a campaign necessarily reduces the quantity of expression by restricting the number of issues discussed, the depth of their exploration, and the size of the audience reached. This is because virtually every means of communicating ideas in today’s mass society requires the expenditure of money.”
We have just emerged from yet another record-setting federal election spending cycle, so it is a good time to reflect on the Supreme Court’s empirical assumption. Buckley and the line of cases that followed it have produced a campaign finance system that allows for virtually unlimited spending in campaigns and elections. With all the money being spent, was the Buckley Court right about the effect of that spending on the quality of political discourse? Does more spending lead to deeper discussion on more issues?
We recently examined a number of political ads from the 2024 election cycle. We found that instead of fostering a political culture with in-depth examination of topics of interest to constituents, much of the spending went toward negative attack ads which, unfortunately, have become the norm in competitive races. These negative ads are fueled by massive spending in our elections, and they are a tactic that both major parties regularly deploy as part of their communications strategies. Here are a few examples from last year:
In the Colorado House District 03 race, which saw almost $20 million in candidate spending, Republican Jeffrey Hurd and Democrat Adam Frisch both released several negative ads against one another. Do ads like these elevate the quality of ideas discussed?
Texas House District 34 is another example of negative spending. Both candidates, Democrat incumbent Vincente Gonzalez and Republican challenger Mayra Flores, released a range of expensive attack ads targeting each other in this race, making it the 2nd most expensive House race in Texas for the 2024 election cycle.
The race in New York House District 17 received news attention due to the large amount of candidate spending (over $18 million) associated with negative attack ads from Democrat Mondaire Jones and Republican Mike Lawler:
Above are just a few examples of how money gets spent these days in hotly contested elections. Was the Supreme Court correct that more money would lead to more ideas and deeper exploration of issues? At American Promise, we trust the American people to be the judge of that. That’s why we’re fighting for the For Our Freedom Amendment. It would allow the American people to decide whether and how to regulate money in campaigns and elections, instead of being handcuffed by the Supreme Court’s assumption that more money is always better.
