their campaigns; hence, these are the only candidates who may be subject to expenditure limits. See 52 U.S.C. § 30116(b). FECA also places limitations on expenditures by national and state party committees. The limits on expenditures by presidential candidates accepting public funding and party committees are increased to reflect inflation as discussed above. 52 U.S.C. § 30116(c)(1)(B). There are no limits on expenditures by a person that are made independently of the candidate being benefitted thereby. However, if such “independent expenditures” exceed certain monetary thresholds, they must be reported to the FEC. 52 U.S.C. § 30104(g). This reporting requirement applies even if the entity making the independent expenditure is not required to register as a political committee with the FEC. There are also no limits on the amount of personal funds that a federal candidate may use in his or her campaign. Under Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. at 52–53, this use of personal funds represents an “expenditure” that cannot be constitutionally limited. (b) 52 U.S.C. § 30118: Prohibition on contributions and expenditures by national banks, corporations, or labor organizations Although Section 30118, when enacted, barred both corporate and union contributions and expenditures entirely – with the exception of those made by separate segregated funds – the Supreme Court has since invalidated as unconstitutional any limits on independent expenditures by corporations or labor organizations made directly from those entities’ general treasury funds. Citizens United v. Fed. Election Comm’n, 558 U.S. 310 (2010) (overturning part of its earlier decision in McConnell v. Fed. Election Comm’n, 540 U.S. 93 (2003) and all of its decision in Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce, 494 U.S. 652 (1990)). In doing so, however, the Court continued to recognize the important governmental interest in preventing corruption and the 133