Supreme Court Precedent Paper: Buckley v Valeo 1
Supreme Court Precedent Paper: Buckley v Valeo Royal
P McHenry
Helm School of Law/Government-Liberty University
Introduction
The Law was a thesis first published in 1850 by an economist journalist Frederic Bastiat
that help influence of the original American ideal of government, as proclaimed in the
Declaration of Independence.
Supreme Court Precedent Paper: Buckley v Valeo 2
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are
endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights that among these are Life,
Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are
instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, that
whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of
the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government (The Declaration of
Independence, 1776)
We find in today’s era America’s government is for the protection of the lives, liberties,
and property of its citizens consistent with Bastiat contentions. Bastiat believed that “all human
beings possessed the God-given, natural rights of individuality, liberty, property and these three
gifts from God precede all human legislation” (Bastiat, 2024 p 3). However, Bastiat compositions
in the late 1840s demonstrates how the law used a an instrument of legal plunder not
protecting individual rights. The law deprive citizens from rights of benefit for the governmental
justification. Consistent to the issue raised by Bastiat we would find in the Administration
Procedure Act. APA promotes the general welfare of our nation’s law and policies including
those imposed by congress. However, Congress have a unique form of delegated forerunners,
policymaking and discussion platform this not determined by the Roberts
Rules of Procedure.
Background
According to White (1926), book titled Introduction to the Study of Public
Administration, “that encompass the bases of management rather than the foundation of law
explains how the nature and importance of administrative law is limited within the scope of
executive and governmental practice” (White, 1926; Osorio, 2023 p 5036). “Some discretionary
views of government interest are responsible government and government overreach which
represent two different ends of government intervention in society” (Osoriao 2023, 5022).
These differences distinguishes state power and the accountability of the government to their
Supreme Court Precedent Paper: Buckley v Valeo 3
citizens. Adversely responsible government is for the best interest of the people. “A responsible
government actively promotes citizens well-being while respecting their rights and freedoms”
(Wampler et al., 2019, p 3).
Rational of Bastiat Law
Frederic Bastiat (1850/2011) argued for a biblical view to be integrated with lawmaking
treatise in the novel of The Law. Though published as a short pamphlet, Bastiat covered
legislative philosophical ideas that encouraged a person to preserve their individual human
rights. Bastiat raised the issue legal plunder. For instance, legislators must challenge (1) the
principle of socialism on biblical grounds, (2) the claim of public education within, and (3) the
engagement of unbridled free trade without its borders. Whether in philosophy, internal
practice, or external practice, a Christian must reject the ideology of legal plundering.
In overview, Bastiat (1850/2011) enlighten his readers of the origin, the purpose, and
the limitations of human law. His reflection of imago Dei, every politician and legislator ought to
strive for individual rights while discarding every depraved system that potentially denies the
individual rights was focus upon. In many aspects of today’s administration procedure act the
resolution of judicial review has empowered the individuals who claimed varies administration
adjudication has offend their constitutional rights as provided by the 1, 4th and 14th amendment.
During the course of Elections, elected State official has made challenges to the
executive administration through congressional claims of procedure to only find a lot of push
back from the administration that many of the elected party were deem to oppose of certain
policies and regulation by way of congruency. The Congruity Theory focuses on how the
alignment between individual’s prototypes and their perceptions of others influences their
behaviors and outcomes
(Ferland, 2021). In the matter of BUCKLEY ET AL. v VALEO, SECRETARY OF THE
Supreme Court Precedent Paper: Buckley v Valeo 4
UNITED STATES SENATE, ET AL. No. 75-436. In the Supreme Court of United States. Argued
November 10, 1975
Involved Parties
Valeo, an ex officio member of the FEC. Plaintiffs was denied both requests for
declaratory relief and a injunction and appealed to the Court of Appeals.
The plaintiffs herein disputed the Federal Election Campaigns Act on the merits that its
principal provisions violated the First Amendment, in the United States District Court of
Columbia. Senators Buckley and McCarthy both believed that campaign finance reform would
limit the ability of candidates to challenge status quo politics was the issue in question. Buckley
v. Valeo (1976), appealed the findings pursuant to 28 U. S. C. §§ 1331, 2201, and 2202, and §
315 (a) of the Act, 2 U. S. C. § 437h. The appellant sought both declaratory judgment claiming
the Act were fundamentally unconstitutional and an issuance of injunction relief from
enforcement of those provisions. (Enforced by U. S. Constitutional Article III).
The following explains jurisdiction
The case of Buckley v. Valeo (1975) involved a constitutional challenge to the Federal
Election Campaign Act (FECA) of 1971, as amended in 1974. The law, aimed at curbing, ,
expenditure limits, corruption in campaigns, disclosure requirements, contribution limits and
the
Federal Election Commission (FEC) validations. Plaintiff thereafter argued FEC violated the First
Amendment's protection of free speech. The case's process involved several stages:
A Senator: James Buckley and Eugene McCarthy a former presidential candidate, initially
lodged into the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, a civil suit challenging the
constitutionality of FECA that was apparently denied in the district court and for appeal to the
Court of Appeals upon certification of this constitutional claim involving the first amendment.
The constitutionality of FECA, the contribution and expenditure limits, and the appointment
Supreme Court Precedent Paper: Buckley v Valeo 5
process for the FEC was affirmed by the Court of Appeals. The plaintiffs filed into the Supreme
Court a Writ of Certiorari from the appellant court review of the constitutionality of the Federal
Election Campaign Act. At the conclusion of several written opinions by the Supreme Court
justices excluding Chief Justice Stevens. Justice Warren E. Burger delivered the opinion.
The Supreme Court, in a per curium opinion, issued a landmark decision. It
affirmed the constitutionality of campaign contribution limits, stating that they
served the government's interest in preventing corruption. However, the Court,
found limits on independent expenditures were unduly restricted political
speech.
It also found the FEC's appointment process unconstitutional.
The Buckley v Valeo court held The Federal Election Campaign 75-436
and 75-437 that governs electoral campaign explained:
(a) “It limits contribution to candidates and committees.
(b) It limits expenditures relative to a clearly identied candidate.
(c) It limits expenditures by a candidate from his personal or family funds.
(d) It restricts overall general election and primary campaign expenditures.
(e) It requires political committees to keep detailed records of contributions and
expenditures including the names and addresses of each individual
contributor in excess of $10 and the name, address, occupation and principal
place of business of all contributors contributing in excessive $100.
(f) Political committees must le quarterly reports with the Federal Election
Commission, disclosing the source of every contribution exceeding $100 and
the recipient and purpose of every expenditure in excess of $100. (g) Every
individual or group other than a candidate or political committee making
contributions or expenditures in excess of $100, other than by
contribution to a political committee or candidate must le a statement with
the Commission.
(f) Primary candidate for the presidential nomination by a major political
party who receives more than $5,000 from private sources, counting
only the rst $250 of each contribution, in each of 20 States, is eligible
for matching public funds” (Buckley v. Valeo, 1976, p 1-2).
The Court holds that this litigation presents an Article III case or controversy.
Supreme Court Precedent Paper: Buckley v Valeo 6
(1). “The Court holds that the Act's contribution provisions are constitutional as
appropriate legislative measures to deal with the reality and appearance of improper
influence stemming from the dependence of candidates on large campaign
contributions.
(2) The Court holds that the contribution limits do not directly impinge upon the rights
of individual citizens and candidates to engage in political debate and discussion (3)
The Court holds that the expenditure provisions, the expenditure limitations are
violative of First Amendment guarantees and they are unconstitutional.
(4) The Court holds Subtitle H of the Internal Revenue Code constitutional because
Congress under the General Welfare Clause has power to decide what expenditures
will promote the General Welfare. Subtitle H is held a permissible congressional
choice as a means to reform the electoral processes.
(5) The Court holds also that the Subtitle, Subtitle H does not violate the First
Amendment. Rather it represents an eort on the part of the Congress to use public
money to facilitate and enlarge the public discussion and participation in the
electoral processes. Being less burdensome than ballot access regulations and
having been enacted in furtherance of governmental and public interests considered
vital, Subtitle H does not invidiously discriminate against minor and new parties in
violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment” (Buckley v. Valeo,
1976 p 2-3)
“Finally, the Court’s invalidation of the spending limit provisions of the Act does
not render Subtitle H unconstitutional” (Buckley against Valeo, 1976, p 4).
Accordingly, the judgment of the Court of Appeals in 75-436 is affirmed in part and
reversed in part.
The judgment of the district court for the District of Columbia in 75-437 is affirmed.
Opinion was rendered January 30, 1976 Warren E. Burger
Supreme Court Precedent Paper: Buckley v Valeo 7
Reference
Bastiat, C. F. (2024). Bastiat's The Law: His Person, His Liberty, and His Property (Vol. 1).
Read Books Ltd. https://cdn.mises.org/thelaw.pdf
Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1 (1976) https://www.fec.gov/court-cases/buckley-v-valeo/
Ferland, B. (2021). Policy congruence and its impact on satisfaction with democracy. Electoral
Studies, 69, 102204. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.electstud.2020.102204
Jefferson, T. (1776). Copy of Declaration of Independence July, 4, 1776 retrieved March 10
2006 .http://hdl.loc.gov/loc.mss/mtj.mtjbib000159
Wampler, B., & Touchton, M. (2019). Designing institutions to improve well being: Participation, ‐
deliberation and institutionalization. European journal of political research, 58(3), 915-
937.https://scholarship.miami.edu/esploro/outputs/journalArticle/
Designing-institutions-to-improve-wellbeing-Participation/991031578782102976
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
