Voters ’ Interests in Campaign Finance Regulation: Formal Models

Abstract

The Supreme Court’s decision in Citizens United v. FEC significantly expands the scope for corporate- and union-financed campaign activity. How should we think about this policy change? One approach, emphasized by the court, asks about the right to free speech. But this right is not absolute—it can be overridden (under a regime of strict scrutiny) by consequentialist reasoning. In his opinion for the ma-jority, Justice Kennedy repeats the consequentialist arguments in favor of unfettered speech in campaigns: Speech is an essential mechanism of democracy, for it is the means to hold officials accountable to the people.... The right of citizens to inquire, to hear, to speak, and to use information to reach consensus is a precondition to enlightened self-government and a necessary means to protect it. But Justice Stevens, in his dissent, points to a different set of consequentialist arguments