First Amendment Protection of Political Speech Cannot Be Subordinated to Election Stability Concerns
Source: Brad Smith. "First Amendment Does Not Contain An Election-Year Exception." April 20, 2026. thefederalist.com
The Gist
The author argues that the Supreme Court should eliminate limits on how much political parties can spend working with their own candidates, and shouldn't worry about disrupting elections by doing so. He believes the First Amendment absolutely protects political speech and that this protection can't be weakened just because changing the rules might cause problems or confusion during an election year.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court should strike down limits on coordinated political party spending and should not delay constitutional remedies for election-year disruption concerns, because the First Amendment provides absolute protection for political speech that cannot be balanced against other interests.
Premises
- The First Amendment's core purpose is to protect robust political debate, especially during election campaigns, as established in Buckley v. Valeo
- Political speech lies at the heart of First Amendment protection and receives the highest level of constitutional protection
- The First Amendment does not permit courts to balance free speech against other competing interests or decide how much speech is 'enough'
- Arguments for maintaining current campaign finance restrictions based on system stability, predictability, and avoiding disruption treat political speech as merely one value among many rather than a fundamental right
- The First Amendment contains no election-year exception that would allow restrictions on political speech to preserve familiar systems or avoid change
- Political campaigns involve speech through which citizens persuade each other and challenge those in power, which is fundamentally different from mechanical voting procedures
- Free political speech is the lifeblood of democracy, and subordinating this right to other values diminishes democracy itself
Assumptions
- Constitutional rights should take precedence over policy preferences and administrative convenience
- The current 26-year-old precedent limiting coordinated party spending was wrongly decided and misread Buckley v. Valeo
- Political parties have a fundamental right to coordinate with their own candidates as part of their core purpose
- Disruption to existing campaign finance systems is an acceptable cost of protecting constitutional rights
- Courts should provide immediate remedies for constitutional violations rather than delaying them for practical concerns