Buckley v. Valeo's Dubious yet Durable Contribution-Expenditure Distinction
Document Type
Book Chapter
Publication Date
3-2026
Abstract
At the heart of Buckley v. Valeo is the Supreme Court’s determination that campaign contributions and campaign expenditures are entitled to different levels of protection under the First Amendment. In “Buckley v. Valeo’s Dubious Yet Durable Contribution–Expenditure Distinction,” Richard Briffault argues that this distinction is flawed and that it has produced a campaign finance regime which Congress never enacted. Briffault first examines how limitations on contributions in a world of unlimited spending create a dysfunctional system of endless fundraising. He ties American democracy’s difficulties with independent expenditures, issue advocacy, super PACs, and dark money directly to this distinction. While Buckley’s contribution–expenditure distinction has been sharply criticized from the outset — and may soon be up for reconsideration by the Supreme Court — it has endured for a half-century as one of the central tenets of American campaign finance law. Briffault examines why a doctrine so problematic in both theory and practice has been so long-lived despite consistent controversy and dysfunction.
Disciplines
Election Law | First Amendment | Law
Recommended Citation
Richard Briffault,
Buckley v. Valeo's Dubious yet Durable Contribution-Expenditure Distinction,
Money, Politics, and the First Amendment: Fifty Years of Supreme Court Decisions and Campaign Finance Reforms, Lee C. Bollinger & Geoffrey R. Stone (Eds.), Oxford University Press
(2026).
Available at:
https://scholarship.law.columbia.edu/faculty_scholarship/4778