University of Miami Law Review


This Article examines the current campaign finance jurisprudence in the United States, with a particular emphasis on the Court’s recognition of compelling state interests. Given the limited recognition of compelling state interests, this Article seeks to question the seemingly arbitrary rationale behind recognition and explore the implications of minimal acceptance of compelling state interests. Because the evolution of compelling state interest recognition has varied greatly, the Court’s recent insistence — that the state has merely one compelling interest — is troublesome. This Article provides a comprehensive review of the campaign finance jurisprudence, then reviews the decisions that created or argued for additional compelling state interests. Interests that were considered compelling prior to Citizens United, such as the anti-distortion interest, remain compelling and hold an important place in the US campaign finance landscape. This Article attempts to respond to the current Court’s trend and shed light on the history of compelling state interest recognition.