Buckley v. Valeo

The issue is whether Congress under the First Amendment made by law, limit the ability of challengers to communicate with the very same constituents without similarly limiting itself.

Of course, public officials need to communicate with voters, but so do challengers and if private contributions to challengers for use in mailing are to be limited, since they may corrupt or give the wealthy an unequal voice, then contributions to incumbents for the same purpose should also be limited.  Ralph K. Winter, Jr.

This was an oral argument made before the Supreme Court of the United States on November 10, 1975.  At question was financing of political campaigns and how much individuals and political action groups can lawfully contribute.

I chose the above paragraph because, at the onset, speaks to the heart of the matter.  Speech and communication are key components in a candidate’s ability to reach his potential constituents.  In he age of mass media, communication is easily translated into dollars.  As anything else in our capitalistic economy, communication becomes subject to the forces of the market, which is counter to democracy.  Therefore, each person must be guaranteed the same access  and ability to communicate to said constituency.