In addition, Smith contends that campaign finance reform favors wealthy candidates. Additional regulation only increases the advantage Buckley gave to such candidates when it struck down restrictions on candidates contributing to their own campaigns. Finally, Smith argues that campaign finance reform favors special interest over grass-roots activity. To the extent Smith's arguments are sound, even reformers should worry. With Buckley 's foes he believes that equality should extend beyond the vote itself.
Democracy demands that equality play a much wider role in politics.
With Buckley 's supporters, on the other hand, he believes that regulation should be subject to searching review. As the title of Sunstein's article suggests, moreover, he also agrees with Smith that campaign finance regulation can have many unwanted consequences. Sunstein criticizes Buckley and, in particular, its hostility to equality concerns by placing the case in historical-legal perspective. The Buckley regime, under which Congress cannot restrict individual expenditures, should be familiar to us, he argues. Sunstein argues that this feeling, although deeply held, is wrong.