Question

In several campaign finance reform cases, such as the 2014 case of McCutcheon v.

Federal Election Commission, the Court struck down elements of laws passed by
Congress that attempt to limit campaign spending by arguing that campaign
spending is a form of political speech protected by the First Amendment. In equating
campaign spending to free speech, which judicial philosophy would best describe the
justices' decision making?
a) judicial activism
Ob) judicial restraint
c) judicial liberalism
d) judicial conservatism

Answer 1

The Supreme Court's alignment with protecting campaign spending as a form of free speech represents judicial conservatism, maintaining strict adherence to the Constitution's original intent, particularly the First Amendment.

Step-by-step explanation:

In several campaign finance reform cases, such as McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission, the Supreme Court struck down elements that attempted to limit campaign spending, equating campaign spending to a form of political speech protected by the First Amendment. Considering this perspective and judicial decisions like Buckley v. Valeo and Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, which judicial philosophy best describes the justices' decision making? The description aligns most closely with judicial conservatism, as this outlook generally emphasizes strict adherence to the original meaning of the Constitution and tends to protect free speech rights, including those expressed through campaign contributions and expenditures.

The justification for striking down campaign spending limits is centered on the protection of freedom of speech, rooted in the First Amendment. This has been seen in rulings like Buckley v. Valeo, where spending money was deemed a form of constitutionally protected speech, and Citizens United, where corporate spending limits were removed on the same grounds.

Answer 2

In campaign finance reform cases, the justices' decision to equate campaign spending to free speech is an example of judicial activism.

Step-by-step explanation:

The justices' decision making in equating campaign spending to free speech in cases like McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission is best described by the judicial philosophy of judicial activism. Judicial activism refers to judges using their power to shape and interpret the law, often through broad interpretations of the Constitution. In this case, the justices took an expansive view of the First Amendment protection of free speech to include campaign spending. This decision overturned elements of campaign finance laws passed by Congress by arguing that limiting campaign spending limits political speech.

Learn more about Campaign finance reform and the interpretation of the First Amendment