What was the outcome of Buckley v. Valeo?

• A. Candidates can only spend limited amounts of their own money
• B. Mandatory spending limits on campaign contributions were upheld
• C. Candidates can spend unlimited personal funds if rejecting public funding
• D. Federal funding is completely unconstitutional

Answer: (C)

The outcome of Buckley v. Valeo is significant because it established that candidates can spend unlimited amounts of their own personal money on their campaigns. The Supreme Court ruled that spending money to influence elections is a form of protected speech under the First Amendment. This means that individuals seeking political office have the right to use their personal resources without restraint, thereby allowing them to campaign more aggressively if they choose to do so.

The ruling differentiated between contributions to a candidate, which could be limited to prevent corruption or its appearance, and personal expenditures by the candidate themselves, which could not be limited. The decision emphasized the importance of free speech in the electoral process, recognizing that personal spending by candidates does not create the same risks of corruption that contributions from others might present.

This ruling shaped the landscape of campaign financing, making it clear that candidates who opt out of public funding can freely invest their personal wealth into their campaigns without any ceiling on the amount they choose to spend.