Freedom of speech (see Guiding Principles and Freedom of Speech) involves not only the right to converse with family, friends and neighbours, but also the freedom to organize, and address public meetings, and to produce and circulate political literature and propaganda. It costs no money to talk with members of one's family or with neighbours.
However, many forms of free speech do incur expenses. If a political activist arranges to visit another area of the city or country, and spend time speaking to electors, there will be costs of travel, board, and lodging. Public meetings may require hiring a suitable hall and on publicity expenses. And it will not be possible to print political literature without paying for it (or without accepting what is effectively a political 'contribution-in-kind' from the printer).
Since the exercise of free speech often requires money, the parties and candidates with the largest financial resources will be able to reach the electors more effectively than the poorest parties and candidates. Arguably, the richest candidates gain an unfair advantage. In order to eliminate or to reduce this unfairness and in order to create a 'level playing field', often regulations have been introduced to restrict the role of money in elections. Sometimes (as in elections for federal offices in the United States), there is a legal ceiling on the amount an individual may contribute; sometimes (as in France or Canada) there is a cap on the amount a party or a candidate is permitted to spend.
Limits on financial contributions, and on spending by parties and candidates are designed to promote fairness. But they have the undoubted effect of limiting freedom of speech. Policymakers must balance two valid, but mutually contradictory, principles.
Draft Only
