It is assumed that if the Court in McCutcheon revises the standard of review for contributions, it will do so to overthrow Buckley and to bring the standards for contributions and expenditures into alignment. Certainly this is a possibility, and it is the outcome being urged by Senator McConnell and dreaded by prominent voices in the reform community.

Of course, the Court has other choices. Depending how it goes about the task, the Court could improve on the Buckley jurisprudence without destroying altogether the contribution/expenditure distinction. The Court’s treatment of contributions and expenditures does not have to be same in order for the approach to contributions to be better—more rigorous in construction and more convincing in application—than it is today.

Rick Hasen has joined others in arguing that, if in McCutcheon the Supreme Court were to strike down the aggregate limit on political contributions, the large individual donor would be able to amass undesirable influence by donating to joint fundraising committees organized by candidates and parties. The money distributed through those committees is governed by limits—$2600 per participating candidate, etc.—but when first given to the joint fundraising committee, the total donated might be massive, in the millions, and the parties and candidates who would divide it up later could be insidiously grateful to the donor.

If the aggregate limit is a means of enforcing the base limits and blocking circumvention, it raises the question: how effective does an anti-circumvention measure have to be to prevail in a test of the provision’s constitutionality? In the case of the aggregate limit, the inquiry leads quickly to a consideration of a new fact of campaign finance—the super PACs.

The District Court in New Mexico that struck down a municipal ban on corporate contributions broke away from other courts that, confronting the question, resolved it the other way under the Supreme Court’s decision in Beaumont. Giant Cab Company v. Bailey, No. 13-cv-00426 (D.N.M filed May 6, 2013); Federal Election Commission v. Beaumont, 539 U.S. 146 (2003). Rick Hasen is confident that Beaumont assures reversal if the case proceeds on appeal (which it may not). Maybe so; but the New Mexico case and perhaps others to follow put in question Beaumont as controlling authority for absolute prohibitions on corporate contributions. In the wake of Citizens United, the outcome remains unclear.

In his recently published criticism of Stanley Fish, Russell Jacoby returns to Fish's position (in Jacoby’s words) that “there are no abstract principles outside of society and history.” “Making It,” The New Republic (September 2, 2013 at 36). This position, Jacoby reminds the reader, accounts for Fish’s insistence “that there’s no such thing as free speech”—that speech has no worth independent of context and any value it is assigned is the outcome of a political struggle. See, e.g. Stanley Fish, There’s No Such Thing As Free Speech (1994) at 102. (“Free speech is not independent value but a political prize….”)

The SCOTUSblog symposium on the McCutcheon case continued with postings on various aspects of the speech and government interests involved in the contribution/expenditure distinction. Justin Levitt argues that overall, in granting more protection to expenditures, the distinction correctly ranks the speech values. The independent expenditure is pure self-expression, the spender’s “unique” view; the contribution helps the candidate’s speech, and as he may speak as he pleases, the message he communicates and the “unique” view of the contributor may well diverge. Tamara Piety affirms the Court’s view that “the expressive interests of contributions are minimal” and that restrictions on them may be necessary to protect against loss of public confidence in government, to enhance the competitiveness of elections, and to focus governmental energies on voters and not contributors.

What this analysis misses in following Buckley is the difference between an interest in speaking about politics, and an interest in effective political speech. The contribution and expenditure distinction is rooted in the first of these interests, and it is for this reason that the expenditure is the constitutionally privileged form of speech. In the Buckley view, the spender speaking just for herself may well treasure volume; the more said, the better, in order to drive the points home. By contrast, because the contributor supposedly speaks through another, “by proxy,” a strictly limited amount given still completes the expressive act of association and fully vindicates this more limited First Amendment interest. The contributor, however, in funding candidate speech is motivated by a deeper interest than Buckley accounts for—an interest in effective political speech.