Joel M. Gora

The Legacy of Buckley v. Valeo

55 HAVING LONG DEFENDED the First Amendment,1 I considered it a great privilege to have been one of the lawyers who argued Buckley v. Valeo2 on behalf of a great liberal Democratic Senator, Gene McCarthy. And it is a great privilege for me now to help fight the same First Amendment battles on behalf of a great conservative Republican Senator, Mitch McConnell, who has been a stalwart defender of the First Amendment no matter the political cost. Senator McCarthy was a leader in establishing the principles recognized in the Buckley case, and Senator McConnell has been a leader in seeking to vindicate those principles. The common ground on which these two so different leaders meet is the conviction that campaign finance limits are fundamentally at odds with First Amendment freedoms. They believe that the text, history and proper interpretation of the First Amendment’s core principal protections of political freedom are basically against permitting government to limit the ability of individuals and groups to use their resources to speak their minds on the political issues and the political figures of the day. I am proud to stand on that same ground and to try to set forth the ways in which the newest campaign finance law runs afoul of those core principles. Though imperfect in some ways, the decision in Buckley v. Valeo, handed down slightly more than 25 years ago, was a landmark of political freedom in its refusal to sanction plenary government control over the very political processes by which government is chosen and held accountable. In this paper, I will discuss the Buckley case, the 25 years of precedential and political developments since the decision, the extraordinary new federal statute that is now being challenged by Senator McConnell and so many others, a word from our sponsors, and the constitutional crossroads we may be approaching.