Federal Election Campaign Act Overview

The video discusses the 1974 amendments to the Federal Election Campaign Act, which introduced limits on contributions and expenditures in federal elections and established the Federal Election Commission (FEC). Legal challenges argued these limits violated First Amendment rights. The Supreme Court ruled that contribution limits were constitutional, but expenditure limits were not. The Court also found the FEC's appointment process unconstitutional. The decision equated money with speech, impacting campaign finance laws and leading to the rise of political action committees.

What was the primary reason for the amendments to the Federal Election Campaign Act in 1974?

• To increase political contributions

• To respond to the Watergate scandal

• To enhance media coverage of elections

• To reduce the number of political parties

What was one of the key provisions of the amended Federal Election Campaign Act?

• Mandatory public debates for candidates

• Abolishment of political parties

• Establishment of the Federal Election Commission

• Unlimited contributions to candidates

What was the main argument against the contribution and expenditure limits in the Act?

• They were difficult to enforce

• They favored certain political parties

• They violated First Amendment rights

• They were too lenient

What did the Supreme Court decide regarding contribution limits?

• They did not violate the First Amendment

• They were too high

• They violated the Appointments Clause

• They were unconstitutional

Why did the Supreme Court find independent expenditure limits unconstitutional?

• They were not enforced

• They were too low

• They favored incumbents

• They restricted freedom of expression

What did the court say about the role of money in modern communication?

• Money is irrelevant

• Money is necessary for communication

• Money should be limited

• Money is only needed for advertisements

What was the court's stance on equalizing political voices?

• It is a legitimate governmental interest

• It is not a legitimate governmental interest

• It should be prioritized over free speech

• It is irrelevant to campaign finance

What did the Supreme Court decide about the FEC appointment process?

• It violated the Appointments Clause

• It was constitutional

• It favored certain political parties

• It was too complex

What impact did Buckley v. Valeo have on campaign finance laws?

• It increased government control over elections

• It abolished contribution limits

• It equated money with speech

• It restricted political action committees

What was a result of the Buckley v. Valeo decision?

• Political action committees flourished

• Political parties were abolished

• Campaign spending decreased

• Election laws became more restrictive