Campaign finance reform has a long history in America. In particular, campaign finance has expanded significantly over the past forty years as courts have attempted to create federal elections that best support the ideals of a representative democracy. In the Supreme Court's most recent decision regarding campaign finance, Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, the Court essentially decided to treat corporations like individuals by allowing corporations to spend money on federal elections through unlimited independent expenditures. In order to understand how the Supreme Court justified this decision, however, we must examine the history of campaign financing as it relates to individuals. At the heart of these campaign finance laws is the balance between two democratic ideals: the ability of individuals to exercise their right to free speech and the avoidance of corrupt practices by contributors and candidates. An examination of these ideals, as well as the effectiveness of the current campaign finance system in adhering to these ideas, will provide a basic framework for the decision in Citizens United v. FEC. Although campaign finance laws primarily deal with limitations on monetary expenditures, campaign finance laws finance are treated as a First Amendment issue. Although it was argued in Buckley v Valeo (which will be discussed in detail later) that campaign donations should be considered conduct, akin to burning a draft card, rather than speech. The Court, however, affirmed that spending money makes communication possible. Often this communication involves only speaking and not driving. Furthermore, the Court recognized that virtually all means of communicating ideas require money, citing several examples, such as the pr...... middle of paper ...... which outweigh this potential (but unproven) appearance of corruption. . The real potential for corruption is linked to direct contributions. However, the Court has imposed controls on this aspect of elections. It appears that any proposed system, even the current one, could be targeted as enabling corruption, or disproportionate influence, or limiting free speech. The important thing, then, is that courts weigh all of these potential harms in an effort to protect the democratic process and the First Amendment. The current system carries out checks in areas where corruption is most likely and allows greater expression in areas where corruption is minimal at best. This gives citizens the great ability to influence elections and critically debate candidates, while ensuring that politicians are accountable for their actions..