What impact did Buckley v. Valeo have on campaign finance limits?

The decision in Buckley v. Valeo significantly impacted campaign finance by striking a balance between regulating contributions and allowing for personal spending. The ruling supported the notion that individuals have the right to spend their own money in political campaigns. This meant that candidates could use unlimited personal funds to finance their campaigns, which recognized the principle of free speech as it relates to political expression and spending.

The case established that while contributions to candidates could be limited to prevent corruption or the appearance of corruption, individuals could freely spend their own resources without restriction. This framework has shaped campaign finance law by allowing for the vast sums of money that wealthy candidates or donors might inject into their campaigns, leading to an increased influence of personal wealth in politics.

Options addressing comprehensive campaign finance limits, independent expenditures, and public financial disclosures do not reflect the core finding of the case. Buckley v. Valeo did not ban independent expenditures; rather, it recognized them as a form of protected free speech. It also did not eliminate disclosure requirements, which remain a key part of campaign finance regulations.