Buckley v Valeo 巴克利訴瓦萊奧案

Buckley v Valeo
繁：巴克利訴瓦萊奧案
简：巴克利诉瓦莱奥案

最高法院在1976年的「巴克利訴瓦萊奧案」(Buckley v. Valeo)一案做出了影響深遠的政治選舉捐款裁決，此次裁決弱化了巴克利案劃定的核心區別。最高法院在巴克利案中裁定，獨立支出屬於受第一修正案保護的政治表達。不過，法院隨後又表示，為了預防腐敗，也許不妨給政治捐款設定上限。在通過前述捐款總額上限時，法院還表示，這是一種「對受保護政治活動實施的十分溫和的限制」，「目的是防止規避」基本限制。

美最高法院取消政治捐款總額上限（2014年4月3日）。纽约时报中文网，取自 http://cn.nytimes.com/usa/20140403/c03scotus/zh-hant/

It would undo not only Citizens United, but the much bigger deal, the Court’s 1976 decision in Buckley v. Valeo. Because corruption or potential corruption was the only basis for regulation the Court permitted, Buckley allows Congress to limit contributions, but not total spending on a campaign (except under voluntary public financing programs), the amount a self-financed candidate spends, or independent spending by individuals that’s not coordinated with a campaign.

A constitutional amendment wouldn’t really limit the power of money in politics. (2014, May 29). Washington Post. Retrieved from https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2014/05/29/a-constitutional-amendment-wouldnt-really-limit-the-power-of-money-in-politics/?utm_term=.fdc09ea77244