Wealth primary

The Wealth Primary is a term used by some critics of the current laws regulating campaign finance

Campaign finance

Campaign finance refers to the fundraising and spending that political campaigns do in their election races. As campaigns have many expenditures, ranging from the cost of travel for the candidate and others to the purchasing of air time for TV advertisements, candidates often devote substantial...

 in the United States to describe the race for money required for effective participation in electoral politics. These critics of privately funded campaigns argue that before parties choose nominees and voters decide who gets their vote, candidates must first demonstrate their ability to raise sufficient funds to communicate a message to the public and compete effectively for votes.

The Wealth Primary is a term used by some critics of the current laws regulating campaign finance

Campaign finance

Campaign finance refers to the fundraising and spending that political campaigns do in their election races. As campaigns have many expenditures, ranging from the cost of travel for the candidate and others to the purchasing of air time for TV advertisements, candidates often devote substantial...

 in the United States to describe the race for money required for effective participation in electoral politics. These critics of privately funded campaigns argue that before parties choose nominees and voters decide who gets their vote, candidates must first demonstrate their ability to raise sufficient funds to communicate a message to the public and compete effectively for votes. Because candidates who are unable to demonstrate the support needed to raise the sums needed for an effective campaign naturally tend to drop out of the race or not to run at all, these critics dub this process the "wealth primary."

The basic framework for campaign finance regulation was by the 1976 Supreme Court decision, Buckley v. Valeo

Buckley v. Valeo

Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1 , was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States upheld a federal law which set limits on campaign contributions, but ruled that spending money to influence elections is a form of constitutionally protected free speech, and struck down portions of the law...

. Buckley held that limits on campaign contributions and spending violated Constitutional rights of speech and association. The Court nonetheless held that the "compelling government interest" in preventing corruption or its appearance justified limitations on campaign contributions to candidates and their campaigns. However, the Court further held that because spending by campaigns or individuals operating independently of campaigns did not pose the same threat of corruption, such limitations on spending were unconstitutional violations of the First Amendment.

Critics argue that unlimited spending, or even contribution limits at the current federal level of $2300 maximum contribution to a campaign, conflicts with the democratic vision of a first amendment protection of political speech. They argue that money can be used to "drown out" one's opponent, and argue that the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment prohibits unequal campaign spending and private contributions and political spending. In 1994, John Bonifaz

John Bonifaz

John C. Bonifaz is a Boston-based attorney specializing in constitutional law and voting rights, and founder of the National Voting Rights Institute. He is currently a board member at the Access Strategies Fund, a Massachusetts foundation promoting electoral reforms to increase the...

 and Jamin Raskin authored a booklet discussing the equal protection rights of non-wealthy candidates and more importantly, the desires of citizens who might wish to hear from and possibly vote for, these candidate who are not able to raise money for an effective campaign. The Supreme Court had rejected this view in Buckley, stating that the idea that some voices could be suppressed in an attempt to equalize speech was "wholly foreign to the First Amendment." In 2006, in Randall v. Sorrell

Randall v. Sorrell

Randall v. Sorrell, 548 U.S. 230 , is a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States involving a Vermont law which placed a cap on financial donations made to politicians. The court ruled that Vermont's law, the strictest in the nation, unconstitutionally hindered the citizens' First...

, the Supreme Court reaffirmed Buckley on this point, striking down a Vermont law that limited campaign spending and placed very low limits on private contributions to candidates.