Final answer:
Campaign finance in the U.S. has been shaped by a series of reforms and Supreme Court decisions, including Citizens United v. FEC and Buckley v. Valeo, which have emphasized free speech and introduced complexities such as the emergence of super PACs.
Step-by-step explanation:
When exploring campaign finance in the United States and other countries, it is evident that the United States has experienced significant changes and challenges in this area. Initially, there were no federal campaign finance laws until the late nineteenth century through the start of World War I when reforms started to be put in place. These reforms included prohibiting politicians from soliciting contributions from civil service workers, outlawing corporate contributions, and mandating candidates to disclose their fundraising activities. However, such laws were often undermined by loopholes.
In response to efforts to limit corruption in campaign financing, concerns always arise regarding the protection of free speech. This debate intensified with the Supreme Court's decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission in 2012, which ruled that contributions from corporations and unions to Political Action Committees (PACs) cannot be limited, citing free speech protections.
As a consequence, super PACs emerged, capable of raising unlimited funds as long as they do not coordinate directly with candidates' campaigns. Despite attempts at reform, such as the McCain-Feingold Act in 2002, many regulations have been circumvented or invalidated by court decisions, giving rise to various political organizations functioning outside the Federal Election Commission's jurisdiction.
Additionally, the U.S. Supreme Court has also made it clear that spending limits are a First Amendment issue, as highlighted in the Buckley v. Valeo case in 1976. Hence, while some public financing is available to candidates who agree to certain restrictions, government cannot forbid entities from raising and spending beyond these limits if they so choose.