Individual Rights vs. Collective Speech in McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission

The battle over campaign finance regulation features a clash of
visions. One side holds that such restrictions clearly violate the
First Amendment by limiting the right to speak freely about
politics. The other holds that the restrictions are necessary to
level the playing field and promote democracy. These competing
views were both well represented today in the Supreme
Court‘s ruling on aggregate spending limits in
McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission.

Writing in dissent, for example, Justice Stephen Breyer faulted
Chief Justice John Roberts for undercutting democracy by focusing
too much on the individual liberty secured by the First Amendment
and not enough on the collective good secured by a vigorous system
of campaign finance regulations. “The First Amendment advances not
only the individual’s right to engage in political speech,” Breyer
argued, “but also the public’s interest in preserving a democratic
order in which collective speech matters.”

In his opinion for the Court, Roberts responded directly to this
critique.”The degree to which speech is protected cannot turn on a
legislative or judicial determination that particular speech is
useful to the democratic process,” he argued. Moreover, “the
dissent’s ‘collective speech’ reflected in laws is of course the
will of the majority, and plainly can include laws that restrict
free speech. The whole point of the First Amendment is to afford
individuals protection against such infringements.” Besides,
Roberts stressed, “the First Amendment does not protect the
government, even when the government purports to act through
legislation reflecting ‘collective speech.'”

For more on McCutcheon v. F.E.C., see
here and here.