The right to free speech, including the right to speak out about who should be elected to public office, is a fundamental American right that is essential to democratic debate. Similarly, the right of individuals to band together and pool their resources to make their advocacy more effective is another fundamental American right.
But under the guise of reform, campaign-finance regulations protect incumbents from electoral competition and stifle political speech and association. The contribution limits and red tape imposed on “political committees” are some ways that campaign finance regulations favor the political establishment. These regulations make it virtually impossible for new independent citizen groups to raise start-up funding and reach voters effectively.
The Institute for Justice opposes this censorship and strongly believes that an unfettered marketplace of ideas strengthens political discourse.
- IJ has won major victories at the U.S. Supreme Court and in federal appellate courts. Our 2010 victory in SpeechNow.org v. FEC at the District of Columbia U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals struck down limits on contributions to groups that spend money on independent political speech. This ruling, along with a U.S. Supreme Court ruling, was described by the Congressional Research Service in 2011 as among “the most fundamental changes to campaign finance law in decades.”
- In 2016, we launched two new cases in Colorado, including a challenge to the state’s system of private-party enforcement for its campaign finance laws and a state court ruling that would make it much harder—and in some cases impossible—for political speakers to get pro bono legal help. We also filed a new lawsuit against an Alabama law that forces “lobbyists” to take an in-person course before they can speak with state lawmakers.
- IJ’s strategic research team has published numerous empirical studies on campaign finance laws, finding that these regulations stifle debate and burden citizens who want to express themselves through grassroots activism. Our strategic research has played a major role in shifting the terms of the debate on these issues and was even cited by the U.S. Supreme Court in Arizona Free Enterprise Club’s Freedom Club PAC v. Bennett in 2011.
Political Speech Cases
East Cleveland’s Government Weaponized its Police to Punish a Political Opponent. He’s Fighting to Hold It Accountable.
Cities can’t use the police to punish political speech.
Latest Political Speech News
Political Speech Research
First Amendment | Political Speech
Information at the Margin: Campaign Finance Disclosure Laws, Ballot Issues, and Voter Knowledge
All 24 states that permit voters to cast ballots directly on policy matters also require that contributions and expenditures on ballot issue campaigns be disclosed publicly. Scholars assert that information about the financial involvement of…
First Amendment | Political Speech
The Public’s Right to Know Versus Compelled Speech: What Does Social Science Research Tell Us About the Benefits and Costs of Campaign Finance Disclosure in Non-Candidate Elections?
The National Conference of State Legislatures has called campaign finance disclosure the most basic form of campaign finance regulation and further notes that “[a]ll states require some level of disclosure from candidates, committees, and political…