Fla. L. Rev. Forum

Bradley A. Smith
Why Buckley?; Why a First Amendment? A Response to Professor Alschuler
Response to Albert Alschuler, Limiting Political Contributions After McCutcheon, Citizens United, and SpeechNow

Albert Alschuler’s Limiting Political Contributions After McCutcheon, Citizens United, and SpeechNow is a lengthy and thoughtful take on campaign finance regulation. In a nutshell, Professor Alschuler argues that under the precedent of Buckley v. Valeo, SpeechNow.org v. Federal Election Commission was incorrectly decided, and, further, that it would be beneficial to overrule SpeechNow. It is impossible in this short space to comment on the nuances of Professor Alschuler’s article, or even all of its major points. But I wish to point out what I think is a misreading of the Supreme Court’s jurisprudence in the field, and then to suggest in very general terms why I disagree with Professor Alschuler’s normative response to the issues of money in politics. Space limitations require me to dramatically simplify and at times simply ignore arguments that Professor Alschuler makes over the course of 120 pages, and I ask the reader, and Professor Alschuler, to make allowance for that reality. Read More.

This entry was posted in Florida Law Review News. Bookmark the permalink.