Buckley v. Valeo Decision Dealt Blow to Campaign Finance Reform

50 years later, the Supreme Court ruling that allowed unlimited campaign spending continues to shape US politics.

Published on Feb. 3, 2026

Got story updates? Submit your updates here. ›

The Sun Sentinel Editorial Board reflects on the 50th anniversary of the Supreme Court's Buckley v. Valeo decision, which overturned major federal campaign finance reforms enacted after the Watergate scandal. The ruling allowed for unlimited campaign spending by candidates and outside groups, leading to a dramatic rise in the cost of elections and concerns about the influence of money in politics.

Why it matters

The Buckley v. Valeo decision is seen as a pivotal moment in the erosion of campaign finance regulations, paving the way for the Citizens United ruling and the rise of 'dark money' in US politics. The editorial argues that this has led to a system where wealthy donors and special interests have an outsized influence on policy outcomes, threatening the integrity of American democracy.

The details

In the 1976 Buckley v. Valeo ruling, the Supreme Court struck down limits on overall campaign spending and the amount candidates could spend of their own money. It also allowed for unlimited 'independent' spending by outside groups, as long as it wasn't coordinated with campaigns. This created a system where money plays an increasingly dominant role in elections, with the cost of presidential campaigns soaring from $664 million in 1976 to $14.8 billion in 2024.

  • The Buckley v. Valeo decision was handed down on January 30, 1976.
  • January 30, 2026 marked the 50th anniversary of the Buckley v. Valeo ruling.

The players

Buckley v. Valeo

A 1976 Supreme Court case that overturned major federal campaign finance reforms enacted after the Watergate scandal.

John Paul Stevens

A former Supreme Court Justice who retired to Fort Lauderdale and wrote about why the Buckley and Citizens United decisions should be overturned.

Martin Gilens and Benjamin Page

Princeton University professors who published a 2014 study documenting the disconnect between public opinion and policy outcomes, suggesting that policymaking is dominated by powerful business organizations and affluent Americans.

Got photos? Submit your photos here. ›

What they’re saying

“Neither the First Amendment nor any other provision of this Constitution shall be construed to prohibit the Congress or any state from imposing reasonable limits on the amount of money that candidates for public office, or their supporters, may spend in election campaigns.”

— John Paul Stevens, Former Supreme Court Justice (Six Amendments)

“Our analyses suggest that majorities of the American public actually have little influence over the policies our government adopts. Americans do enjoy many features central to democratic governance, such as regular elections, freedom of speech and association, and a widespread (if still contested) franchise. But we believe that if policymaking is dominated by powerful business organizations and a small number of affluent Americans, then America's claims to being a democratic society are seriously threatened.”

— Martin Gilens and Benjamin Page, Princeton University Professors (2014 study)

What’s next

Efforts to amend the Constitution to allow for reasonable limits on campaign spending, as proposed by former Justice John Paul Stevens, could be a next step in addressing the issues raised by the Buckley v. Valeo decision.

The takeaway

The Buckley v. Valeo decision marked a pivotal moment in the erosion of campaign finance regulations, leading to a system where money plays an outsized role in US politics and threatens the integrity of American democracy. Fifty years later, the consequences of this ruling continue to shape the political landscape.