First Amendment rights of children

[Adam Winkler]

I'm not sure the "substantial overbreadth" of the restrictions on
minor children contributions is quite as fatal as Eugene believes.
According to the Court's campaign finance doctrine, contribution
limits do not need to be tailored very precisely.  Buckley's
validation of $1,000 caps on individual contributions was accompanied
by a statement about the necessity of deference to Congress on the
issue of tailoring.  The Court, it said, will not require that
Congress use a scalpel to sharply mark the line between corrupting
and non-corrupting contributions.  After all, Congress would be hard
pressed to show that $1,050 has the potential to purchase a
candidate's vote but $999 does not, but the line must be drawn
somewhere.

That the ban on minor children contributions gathers within its ambit
some legitimate, non-corrupting contributions from some children is
not much different than the $1,000 caps.  In light of the common
practice of skirting individual contribution limits by way of minor
children -- and the probable relative scarcity of cases of minor
children really desiring to contribute to candidates for expressive
reasons -- the proposed provision should survive constitutional
scrutiny.

My citation of Austin should not be misconstrued.  I cite the case
only to support the claim that contribution restrictions that amount
to a total ban -- as compared to caps -- fit within the framework of
current campaign finance doctrine.

-Adam Winkler
CLEO/Olin Fellow, University of Southern California