Campaign Contributions, Independent Expenditures, and the Appearance of Corruption: Public Opinion vs. the Supreme Court's Assumptions

We use survey experiments to test the validity of judicial assumptions underlying campaign finance regulation. Our evidence supports the key assumption that "appearance of corruption" is directly related to the monetary value of campaign contributions. Contrary to the Court's reasoning in Buckley v. Valeo and Citizens United v. FEC, independent expenditures are more likely to elicit the appearance of corruption than direct contributions, and direct contributions well below the legal limit also create the appearance of corruption. Our findings therefore call into question key legal tenets underlying campaign finance regulation and suggest that the amounts raised by virtually every federal election campaign exceed the threshold required to elicit widespread public perceptions of corruption.