¹ The Federal Election Campaign Act Amendments of 1974, Public Law 93–433, 93d Congress, 2d Sess., 1974.

² Buckley v. Valeo, –U.S.–, 96 S. Ct. 612 (1976). A more complete description of the decision is found in the appropriate sections of this essay.

³ Full public subsidies are available to candidates of major parties–those receiving 25 per cent or more of the vote in the last presidential election. Proportional subsidies are available to candidates of minor parties–those receiving between five per cent and 25 per cent of the vote in the last election. And postelection subsidies are available to candidates of parties which qualify as either major or minor parties because of the votes received in the current election.

⁴ Heard, Alexander, The Costs of Democracy (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1960), p. vii Google Scholar.

⁵ These compilations were published by the Federal Communications Commission under the title Survey of Political Broadcasting for each election year from 1960 through 1970. The 1972 data were published as a congressional document. U.S. Congress, Senate, Sub-Committee on Communications, Committee on Commerce, Hearings on S. 372, Appendix A, 93d Congress, 1st Sess., 1973.

⁶ Alexander's, earlier presidential studies are Financing the 1960 Election (Princeton: Citizens' Research Foundation, 1972)Google Scholar; Financing the 1964 Election (Princeton: Citizens' Research Foundation, 1966);and Financing the 1968 Election (Princeton: Citizens' Research Foundation, 1970)Google Scholar.

⁷ 1972 Congressional Campaign Finances; 1972 Federal Campaign Finances: Interest Groups and Political Parties; 1974 Congressional Campaign Finances.

⁸ Fleishman, Joel and Greenwald, Carol, “Public Interest Litigation and Political Finance Reform,” The Annals 425 (May, 1976), 116 Google Scholar.

⁹ Heard, The Costs of Democracy, ch. 8.

¹⁰ Owens, Trends in Campaign Spending in California, 1958-1970: Tests of Factors Influencing Costs.

¹¹ Owen's list of variables for testing was drawn from Heard, , The Costs of Democracy, pp. 280–287 Google Scholar; Adamany, David, Financing Politics (Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1969), pp. 61–107 Google Scholar; and Adamany, David, Campaign Finance in America (North Scituate, Mass.: Duxbury Press, 1972), pp. 51–78 Google Scholar.

¹² Dawson, Paul and Zinser, James, “Political Finance and Participation in Congressional Elections,” The Annals 425 (May, 1976), 59–73 Google Scholar.

¹³ Penniman, , “Financing Campaigns in the Public Interest,” Campaign Finances: Two Views of the Political and Constitutional Implications, p. 1 Google Scholar.

¹⁴ Winter, “Money, Politics and the First Amendment,” Campaign Finances: Two Views of the Political and Constitutional Implications.

¹⁵ Alexander, , Money In Politics, p. 22 Google Scholar.

¹⁶ Alexander, , Money In Politics, p. 37 Google Scholar.

¹⁷ Buchanan, William and Bird, Agnes, Money as a Campaign Resource: Tennessee Democratic Senatorial Primaries, 1948–1964 (Princeton: Citizens' Research Foundation, 1966)Google Scholar.

¹⁸ Dunn, , Financing Presidential Campaigns, p. 9 Google Scholar.

¹⁹ Dawson, Paul and Zinser, James, “Broadcast Expenditures and Electoral Outcomes in the 1970 Congressional Elections, Public Opinion Quarterly 35 (Fall, 1971), 398–402 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

²⁰ Dawson, and Zinser, , “Broadcast Expenditures and Electoral Outcomes in the 1970 Congressional Elections,” p. 400 Google Scholar.

²¹ Patterson, Thomas and McClure, Robert, “Television and the Less-Interested Voter: The Costs of an Informed Electorate,” The Annals 425 (May, 1976), 88–97 Google Scholar.

²² Patterson and McClure, p. 96.

²³ Alexander, , Money In Politics, p. 20 Google Scholar.

²⁴ Dunn, , Financing Presidential Campaigns, p. 20 Google Scholar.

²⁵ Dunn, p. 21.

²⁶ Winter, , “Money, Politics and the First Amendment,” p. 52 Google Scholar.

²⁷ The class bias of campaign giving is described in Adamany, David and Agree, George, Political Money (Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1975), pp. 29–31 Google Scholar.

²⁸ An outstanding treatment of the uses and misuses of money during the 1972 campaign is Alexander, Financing the 1972 Election, chaps. 3,12,13.

²⁹ Nichols, , Financing Elections, p. 60 Google Scholar.

³⁰ Nichols, pp. 93–94.

³¹ Alexander, , Money in Politics, p. 12 Google Scholar.

³² President's Commission on Campaign Costs, Financing Presidential Campaigns (Washington, 1962).

³³ Alexander, Financing the 1972 Election, ch. 2. For the Comptroller General's perspective, see Staats, Elmer, “Impact of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971,” The Annals 425 (May, 1976), 98–113 Google Scholar.

³⁴ Alexander, , Financing the 1972 Election, p. 29 Google Scholar.

³⁵ Alexander, Money in Politics, chap. 12.

³⁶ Peabody, et al., To Enact a Law, p. 5 Google Scholar.

³⁷ Berry, Jeffrey M. and Goldman, Jerry, “Congress and Public Policy: A Study of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971,” Harvard Journal on Legislation 10 (February, 1973), 331–365 Google Scholar.

³⁸ Adamany, David and Agree, George, “Election Campaign Financing: The 1974 Reforms,” Political Science Quarterly 90 (Summer, 1975), 202–211 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

³⁹ Federal, Election Commission, Analysis of Federal and State Campaign Finance Law (Washington, 1975)Google Scholar.

⁴⁰ Alexander, , Money in Politics, p. 234 Google Scholar. Although the Supreme Court's decision in Buckley will modify much of the commentary, the most thoughtful analyses of the congressional power to regulate campaign finance, the constitutional limits on such regulations, and the specific problems of expenditure limits, contribution ceilings, disclosure, and public subsidies are Rosenthal, Albert J., Federal Regulation of Campaign Finance: Some Constitutional Questions (Princeton: Citizens' Research Foundation, 1972)Google Scholar; Fleishman, Joel L., “Freedom of Speech and Equality of Political Opportunity: The Constitutionality of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971,” North Carolina Law Review 51 (January, 1973), 389–483 Google Scholar; Fleishman, Joel L., “Public Financing of Election Campaigns: Constitutional Constraints on Steps Toward Equality of Political Influence of Citizens,” North Carolina Law Review 52 (December, 1973), 349–416 Google Scholar; and Biden, Joseph R. Jr., “Public Financing of Elections: Legislative Proposals and Constitutional Questions,” Northwestern University Law Review 69 (March-April, 1974), 1–70 Google Scholar.

⁴¹ 96S.Ct. 612, at 634-635. My own view that the constitutional issues surrounding expenditure and contribution limits are separable is spelled out in Adamany, and Agree, Political Money, pp. 62–70 Google Scholar.

⁴² 96S.Ct. 612, at 635.

⁴³ 96S.Ct. 612, at 638.

⁴⁴ Rosenthal, Albert J., “The Constitution and Campaign Finance Regulation After Buckley v. Valeo,” The Annals 425 (May, 1976), 130 Google Scholar.

⁴⁵ Nicholson, Marlene Arnold, “Campaign Financing and Equal Protection,” Stanford Law Review 26 (April, 1974), 815–854 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

⁴⁶ Thayer, , Who Shakes The Money Tree?, p. 296 Google Scholar.

⁴⁷ The difficulty of making effective use of federal campaign finance reports is illustrated by the fact that 269,500 pages of data were received by the filing officers during the 1972 campaign. How can this volume of information be examined and the crucial information transmitted to the public during the short term of a political campaign? See Alexander, , Financing the 1972 Election, p. 12 Google Scholar.

⁴⁸ My own reservations about the effectiveness of disclosure have been expressed in Adamany, and Agree, Political Money, pp. 103–115 Google Scholar.

⁴⁹ 96 S.Ct. 612, at 665.

⁵⁰ 96 S.Ct. 612, at 661.

⁵¹ Adamany, and Agree, Political Money, pp. 123–128 Google Scholar.

⁵² Winter, , Campaign Financing and Political Freedom, p. 25 Google Scholar.

⁵³ survey of the failure of parties, including Socialist parties, in many nations to meet campaign costs from dues payments is found in Heidenheimer, Arnold J., “Comparative Party Finance: Notes on Practices and Toward A Theory,” Journal of Politics 25 (November, 1963), 791–795 CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Also, Epstein, Leon D., Political Parties in Western Democracies (New York: Praeger, 1967, pp. 245–246 Google Scholar. Increasingly the German Social Democrats have relied on public subsidies rather than membership dues. Ulrich Duebber and Braunthal, Gerard, “West Germany,” Journal of Politics 25 (November, 1963), 784–786 Google Scholar. Also, Schleth, Uwe and Pinto-Duschinsky, Michael, “Why Public Subsidies Have Become the Major Sources of Party Funds in West Germany, but Not in Great Britain,” in Comparative Political Finance, ed. Heidenheimer, Arnold J. (Lexington, Mass.: D.C. Heath, 1970), pp. 43–46 Google Scholar.

⁵⁴ Adamany, , Financing Politics, pp. 175–181 Google Scholar.

⁵⁵ 96 S.Ct. 612, at 671 (1976).

⁵⁶ The Federal Election Campaign Act Amendments of 1976, Public Law 94–283, 94th Congress, 2d Sess., 1976.

⁵⁷ Rosenthal, , “The Constitution and Campaign Finance Regulations after Buckley v. Valeo,” p, 132 Google Scholar.

⁵⁸ Agree, George, “Public Financing After the Supreme Court Decision,” The Annals 425 (May, 1976), 135 Google Scholar.

⁵⁹ Agree, p. 135.

⁶⁰ My views on policy goals and measures to achieve those goals, especially a voucher system for public financing, are advanced in Adamany and Agree, Political Money, esp. chaps. 10 and 11. Some of these proposals and their supporting arguments are elaborated in Agree, “Public Financing After the Supreme Court Decision.”