The Buckley v. Valeo case in 1975 was a landmark decision by the US Supreme Court on campaign finance. The court ruled that statutory limits placed on election campaign expenditures violated the First Amendment's freedom of speech clause, but upheld provisions limiting contributions to campaigns and requiring public disclosure of political contributions over a certain amount. The court also upheld a system providing for public financing of presidential elections, as it did not impose restrictions upon individual candidates' spending or limit their ability to engage in political speech. This ruling has had significant implications for American politics, establishing the legal framework for modern campaign finance and sparking ongoing debates about money's role in politics.

In the dissenting opinion for Buckley v. Valeo, Justice Byron White argued that the majority's decision to strike down limits on campaign expenditures was misguided and could potentially harm democratic processes. He contended that such limits were necessary to prevent corruption or its appearance in politics, as well as ensuring equal access to political discourse for all citizens regardless of wealth. Furthermore, he disagreed with the majority's view that money equates speech under First Amendment protections; instead, he saw it as a means by which speech is carried out rather than being equivalent to speech itself. Therefore, regulating financial contributions should not be seen as infringing upon free expression rights but rather safeguarding democracy from undue influence by wealthy individuals or entities.