Final answer:
The distinction between self-funding by candidates and donation limits to political campaigns is rooted in the attempt to protect the democratic process and maintain voter influence. The Supreme Court case Buckley v. Valeo affirmed candidates' First Amendment rights to spend unlimited amounts on their own campaigns, while upholding contribution limits to ensure a balanced political playing field.
Step-by-step explanation:
The subject you are referring to deals with campaign finance laws and the regulation of political campaign spending in the United States, which falls under Social Studies. A landmark case in this area is Buckley v. Valeo, where the Supreme Court upheld the First Amendment rights of candidates to spend as much of their own money as they wish on their campaign. The ruling differentiated between self-funded campaigns and contributions to candidates due to concerns over potential influence by wealthy individuals across multiple campaigns.
Limits on contributions from individuals and entities were maintained to ensure a more equal playing field and prevent the dilution of influence by the average voter. For example, individuals can give up to $2900 per candidate per election, while various limits apply to PACs and party committees. These contribution limits are adjusted for inflation every two years.
While self-funding has no cap, contributions to political campaigns do have limits to protect the democratic process and maintain the influence of a broad pool of contributors. This balance attempts to safeguard the integrity of elections and the representation of voters' interests.