Abstract
Buckley v. Valeo, in which the Supreme Court held contribution limits was constitutional while expenditure limits was unconstitutional, is one of the most troubling cases for scholars who has just started their study on the First Amendment jurisprudence. That difficulty is due largely to the incoherence of doctrine behind the case law developed after Buckley. As a matter of case law analysis, the Buckley formula is still binding, although many commentators regard its diffusion, or virtual overruling, of Buckley has been completed when the Congress passed the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act, and the Court held it constitutional in McConnell v. F.E.C. in 2003. In this note article, I briefly outline the development of campaign finance regulation and the case law on its constitutionality. And I explain why the call for modification or overruling of Buckley is heard from both liberal and conservative wings of the Supreme Court Justices.
