The article begins by introducing Landell and stating that it is an important decision in campaign finance law because it is the first time since Buckley that a court has held that a candidate expenditure limitation can be constitutional. It then goes through a history of the evolving judicial consideration of candidate expenditure limitations, discussing cases such as Buckley, Homans, and Landell. The article continues by discussing the Landell panels assertion that public funding and spending limits may actually be in conflict with one another. It then goes through some arguments that make the case for spending limits, including prevention of corruption, time protection, competitive elections, voter equality, and democratic elections. It conclude by stating that although the ultimate fate of the spending limit upheld by Landell is uncertain, the case has certainly played an important role in opening the question of whether spending limits are constitutional.

Included in

Other Law Commons