Legislation mandating reform failed to pass again in the fall of 1999. At the core of campaign finance reform is the issue of freedom of speech and freedom of association versus censorship of political speech by the government. Censorship is a word proponents of further regulation do not like to use, but all so-called reforms involve additional restrictions on contributions or spending or both. This control of resources is the method of censorship most commonly used by modern governments. Many states also have such limitations.
Spending is limited in presidential elections if candidates choose to accept federal funds.
The current morass of rules and regulations is the result of the 1974 Federal Election Campaign Act and various amendments, Supreme Court decisions relating to this act, and efforts to find legitimate ways around specific restrictions, most prominently contributions to political parties for purposes more general than the specific support of a candidate and expenditures made by individuals and organizations independent of the candidate. The Supreme Court's decisions are central to the debate. The Court rejected all but voluntary spending limitations as a restriction on freedom of speech, including spending by candidates themselves. Thus a wealthy candidate can spend a fortune on his or her own campaign but not contribute those funds in support of a chosen candidate. The Court left in place, however, limits on contributions, on the grounds that the government had a legitimate role in controlling corruption and the appearance of corruption.