This letter to the editor originally published in the New York Times on May 22, 2026.
To the Editor:
Re “How One Case Gave the Rich a Power Boost” (front page, May 10):
Danny Hakim’s account of the Buckley v. Valeo case from 1976 provides a thorough overview of its history. However, the article’s focus on wealthy donors obscures Buckley’s most enduring and important effect on free political speech.
Consider what the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 would have done. It would have limited House challengers to spending $70,000 on their campaigns, a sum inadequate to reach a congressional district of 700,000 people, even then.
Challengers, not incumbents, benefit most from spending, because incumbents have name recognition and other advantages. Adjusting the cap for inflation, the average victorious challenger in the 2024 general election spent nearly seven times the 1974 cap.
More broadly, the Federal Election Campaign Act would have limited organizations such as the A.C.L.U., Planned Parenthood and the Chamber of Commerce to spending $1,000 “relative to” a candidate. That effectively silenced every advocacy group in America.
The act’s purpose was to limit political discussion.
Maybe the court was wise not to hand government, and self-interested legislators, the power to decide who is speaking too much, and which views citizens should not be permitted to hear.
