Vigilant media and law enforcement now nip improper personal enrichment in the bud, as politicians involved in the savings and loan scandals found out to their detriment. Political money today instead goes directly into political advertising, a quintessential form of political speech. Our large electoral districts and weak political parties force candidates to communicate directly with large groups of voters. This depends on the use of the privately owned mass media. Thus getting the candidate's message out is expensive.
Reformers sometimes decry today's political advertising as repetitious and reductive.
Nor is there any doubt that restrictions on political money amount to restrictions on political speech. Reformers sometimes say they merely seek to limit money, not speech. But a law, say, barring newspapers from accepting paid political advertisements or limiting the prices of political books would also limit only the exchange of money. Unfortunately, the Supreme Court only half recognized this point when, in 1976, it struck down limits on political expenditures while upholding limits on political gifts. Expenditures, the Court reasoned, may not be limited in order to level the playing field, but political contributions may be limited to prevent the reality or appearance that big contributors will have disproportionate influence.