"One camp accepts the Court's limits on contributions but urges the reinstatement of spending caps - even if this requires a constitutional amendment subjecting political speech, if not pornography, to government regulation"

In this quote, James L. Buckley attends to the controversial argument surrounding campaign finance laws in the United States. He describes 2 separate aspects of these laws: contribution limitations and spending caps. Contribution limits restrict the quantity of cash individuals or entities can contribute to political prospects or parties. Spending caps, on the other hand, limit the quantity a candidate can invest in their project.

Buckley notes that there is one group or "camp" that accepts the Supreme Court's choice to uphold limitations on contributions, most likely describing choices such as Buckley v. Valeo (1976), where the Court held that restricting project contributions serves an engaging interest in preventing corruption or its appearance. Nevertheless, this same camp advocates for the reinstatement of spending caps, which the Court had actually overruled on the premises of complimentary speech, emphasizing that spending cash to promote a political message represents a form of safeguarded speech under the First Amendment.

The quote goes further to suggest that this group is so devoted to restoring costs caps that it would consider supporting a constitutional modification. Amending the Constitution is a substantial and challenging relocation, showing the group's belief in the requirement of these caps to guarantee fairer electoral procedures. Buckley inserts an intriguing comparison by stating this modification would subject political speech, perhaps concluding that existing situations focus on regulating political discourse less carefully than concerns like porn.

Thus, Buckley's declaration critiques the idea of balancing complimentary speech with the need to manage the influence of money in politics. He illuminates the inherent stress in between guaranteeing fair democratic processes and supporting the complimentary speech rights of people and companies, a cornerstone of American constitutional law. This highlights the ongoing struggle to keep electoral stability while respecting individual flexibilities.