Final answer:
Presidential candidates who accept federal funding are bound by spending limits but often prefer raising more money without such restrictions. The U.S. Supreme Court's Buckley v. Valeo decision has impacted how campaign spending is regulated, emphasizing freedom of speech over stringent spending limitations.
Step-by-step explanation:
Presidential candidates who accept federal funding for their general election campaigns are permitted to receive public financing provided by the federal government, but they must adhere to certain spending limits as part of the agreement. This system was created to help control campaign spending and provide a check on the influence of private contributions in elections. However, it has been observed that candidates often opt out of public financing in order to avoid these restrictions, as seen with Barack Obama in 2008. An unintended consequence of this choice can be a greater reliance on funds from political action committees (PACs) and other donors who may have their own interests. In addition, candidates who start with high amounts of money, often described as a substantial 'war chest', can be more competitive and attract further donations, which reinforces their ability to raise even more funds, as emphasized by groups like EMILY's List.
The role of campaign finances in presidential elections is complex and has been influenced by legal decisions such as Buckley v. Valeo, where the U.S. Supreme Court highlighted the importance of freedom of speech and set limitations on how the government can limit campaign spending. Candidates are free to choose to receive public funding and abide by spending limits, but the government cannot prevent them from raising and spending money above those limits if they choose not to accept public financing.