Question

Buckley v. Valeo

Question 18 options:



A. upheld contribution limits but struck down spending limits.




B. upheld spending limits but struck down contribution limits.




C. held that campaign finance regulations of any kind are unconstitutional because they violate the First Amendment right to freedom of speech.




D. held that disclosure of the names and addresses of donors of campaign contributions of less than $200, to minority parties such as the Communist Party, violates the freedom of association​ because contributors to politically unpopular parties risk retaliation such as loss of employment if their identities are revealed.

Answer 1

C. Held that campaign finance regulations of any kind are unconstitutional because they violate the First Amendment right to freedom of speech.

Step-by-step explanation:

Buckley V. Valeo was a case about campaign finance. It held that the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 was unconstitutional. The Act placed limits on the expenditure the parties could take in their campaigns.

The majority of the justices held that the unconstitutionality was in the fact that limiting the expends was against the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and the freedom of speech.

I hope this answer helps you.

Answer 2

The correct answer is C. The Supreme Court ruled that the federal government could cap contributions to political parties, and thus endorsed the 1974 Act amending the Federal Elections Campaign Act 1971. However, it declared certain parts of the law to be anti-constitutional, to drop the legislated ceiling on the contribution of candidates to their own campaign. Above all, it found the statutory spending limit imposed on political parties in the organization of election campaigns to be contrary to the Constitution: whether the individual restrictions on the amount that could be given to political parties were considered legitimate, in that they led only the parties to broaden their base in order to raise sufficient funds, the ceiling on election expenses itself was annulled on the grounds that it contradicted the 1st Amendment of US Constitution right to freedom of speech.