MBE Rules · Constitutional Law
Campaign Finance
Buckley / Citizens United
The rule
Contribution limits are permissible to prevent quid-pro-quo corruption, but independent-expenditure limits — including on corporations and unions — violate the First Amendment.
In plain English
Campaign finance laws allow limits on contributions to candidates to prevent corruption or the appearance of corruption. However, independent expenditures, which are funds spent by individuals or organizations to advocate for or against a candidate without coordinating with the candidate's campaign, cannot be limited as they are protected by the First Amendment's free speech clause.
Worked example
A corporation spends $1 million on an ad campaign supporting a candidate without any coordination with that candidate's campaign. This spending is considered an independent expenditure and cannot be limited by law. Therefore, the corporation's actions are protected under the First Amendment.
Memory hook
Contributions can be capped, but independent spending is free speech!
The trap
Exams may present scenarios where students confuse contributions with independent expenditures, leading them to incorrectly apply limits where none exist. Watch for keywords that indicate whether the spending is coordinated or independent.
How examiners test it
Questions often involve fact patterns where candidates or organizations engage in spending, requiring students to identify whether the spending is a contribution or an independent expenditure and apply the appropriate legal standards.
Drill this rule until it can't fail you.
Vrenberg generates unlimited questions on this exact rule, tracks your mastery of it, and brings it back until it sticks.