American elections are defined by the millions of campaign finance dollars contributed to individual candidates and campaigns by 501(c)(4) nonprofit groups seeking to push forth their interests’ competing agendas. While many criticize the volume of these donations, others seek to address the fact that 501(c)(4) nonprofits are using “dark money” vehicles enabled and enforced by Supreme Court precedent. While political donors may face First Amendment protections for their financial expressions, there is a strong public interest in voters being informed of such contributions. However, as NAACP v. Alabama contends, the implied right of privacy is critical in cases where political donation may yield harm or reprisal. This analysis details and expands upon a Supreme Court doctrine of substantial restraint, ensuring campaign finance reform with all these challenges in mind. As I derive through my research, a stare decisis precedent of substantial restraint would slow the proliferation of dark money on a case-by-case basis while allowing factions to continue to play in the game of political expression through campaign finance.

University Libraries Undergraduate Research Award