Question

In ________,the Supreme Court ruled that there could be no limits placed on candidates' expenditures of their own funds since such spending is considered free speech.

A) Buckley v. Valeo
B) Nixon v. U.S.
C) Rockefeller v. U.S.
D) Perot v. Reno
E) Kerry v. U.S.

Answer 1

The Supreme Court's decision in Buckley v. Valeo confirmed that candidates could spend unlimited sums of their own money in campaigns, citing freedom of speech protections under the First Amendment.

Step-by-step explanation:

In Buckley v. Valeo, the Supreme Court ruled that there could be no limits placed on candidates' expenditures of their own funds since such spending is considered free speech.

In the landmark decision Buckley v. Valeo, which took place in 1976, the Supreme Court struck down certain provisions of federal election campaign laws that placed limitations on campaign expenditures, contributions, and disclosure of campaign spending. This was a significant ruling that emphasized the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which protects freedom of speech. The decision said that individuals, including candidates, have the right to spend their own money to influence elections.

While the government can offer public financing deals to candidates in exchange for adhering to spending limits, it cannot forcibly impose these limits on expenditures made by candidates from their own funds. Ultimately, this case solidified the principle that campaign spending by candidates on their own behalf is a form of protected free speech.