Intro.:  In the modern political campaign, speech and the
expenditure of money seem inevitably to go hand in hand. Whether
money is spent by a private citizen who is contributing to a
candidate, by a political action committee which runs advertisements
backing or opposing certain candidates, or by a candidate himself,
campaign spending has a strong expression component. Yet if
corruption and the appearance of corruption are to be curbed, and if
the cynical view that the richest candidate generally wins is to be
proved wrong, some sorts of limits on campaign spending are probably
necessary.  In a series of cases beginning with Buckley in 1976, the
U.S. Supreme Court has attempted to work out a line dividing those
types of election spending which the states or the federal government
may prohibit from those which are constitutionally-protected. While
this line is a somewhat blurry one, two basic principles have
emerged: (1) contributions made by individuals or groups to
individual candidates or to political action committees may be
limited, but independent expenditures by individuals, and
expenditures by candidates from their own funds, may not be limited;
and (2) contributions that are made in support of or in opposition to
ballot measures (as opposed to candidacies) may not be limited.