Which case upheld key provisions of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act restricting corporate and union independent expenditures?

• A. Reynolds v. Sims (1964)
• B. Gratz v. Bollinger (2003)
• C. McConnell v. FEC (2003)
• D. Buckley v. Valeo (1976)

Answer: (D)

In campaign finance, upholding restrictions on corporate and union independent expenditures rests on the government's interest in preventing corruption or the appearance of corruption in elections. The case that serves as the clear example of this is a 2003 Supreme Court decision holding that the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act's provisions limiting independent expenditures by corporations and labor unions are constitutional. The Court reasoned that allowing unlimited outside spending by such entities could lead to quid pro quo arrangements or at least the perception that public officials are swayed by major contributors, and thus the restrictions were a legitimate means to protect the integrity of the electoral process. This decision treats prevention of corruption as a substantial government interest capable of justifying certain limits on independent political spending, even as it rejects broader challenges to speech in other contexts. By contrast, Reynolds v. Sims and Gratz v. Bollinger address voting districting and affirmative action, respectively, and Buckley v. Valeo dealt with different aspects of campaign finance from an earlier era, not the same set of restrictions at issue in BCRA.