• Super ultra important
• Restricted contributions
• Limits on independant expenditures.
  • Ind. exp. by entities not cadidates or pol. party
• Expenditure of money ≠ burning a draft card
• Expenditures vs. contributions
  • Contr. ≠ speech.
  • Exp. = pure speech.
  • Restriction of either limits expression, but restriction of expenditures more so.
• Expenditures are expression (protected)
• Limitations on expenditures from a candidate’s own funds or the funds of his immediate family are unconstitutional.
• Rich person can self-fund and do whatever
• No governmental interest is sufficient enough to justify limits on expenditures.
• Dissent believes that the distinction between expenditure and contribution is nonsensical, and both should be restricted.
• Corruption argument for limiting contributions

Main Ideas

Previously, in Buckley v. Valeo (1976), the Supreme Court held that limits on contributions implicate fundamental First Amendment interests, but that such limits may be imposed as long as they are closely drawn to match a sufficiently important governmental interest.

Independent Expenditures vs Contributions

• An independent expenditure is **a payment made without request from a political entity to facilitate, not directly contribute to, **partisan political communication.
  • Spending on advertising, flyers, etc. to support a candidate without direct influence from him or his agents.

Independent Expenditures vs. Contributions

• Independent expenditures are pure speech because they’re a legal and voluntary supporting of a political ideology. Contributions are not “pure” because they hold specific sway over the candidate’s agenda and frustrate democracy.