This Review proceeds in three parts. In Part I, I explore Post's historical survey of self-government and anticipate critiques of this account. In Part II, I review Post's proposed First Amendment theory and constitutional framework for adjudicating challenges to campaign finance regulations. In Part III, I focus on the omission in Post's constitutional framework-his failure to address the Court's concern about chilling constitutional speech. I then offer another path forward that builds from Post's framework but accounts for the Court's concern about chilling effects.