What does giving unlimited money to one's own campaign signify?

Giving unlimited money to one's own campaign signifies an expression of free speech, particularly in the context of U.S. campaign finance law. This concept is rooted in the Supreme Court's decision in the landmark case Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission (2010), which determined that financial contributions to political campaigns are considered a form of protected speech under the First Amendment.

Individuals can spend as much of their own money as they wish on their campaigns without government restrictions, reflecting the belief that spending money is a way to express political views and participate in the democratic process. This interpretation emphasizes the idea that financing a campaign—regardless of the amount—should not be limited if it is coming from the candidate's own resources.

This perspective contrasts with the other options, which do not align with this constitutional interpretation. For instance, unlimited personal spending does not indicate a lack of financial resources or denote a limitation in campaign financing, as it actually empowers candidates to assert their political messages through their financial backing. Additionally, it is not about acceptance of contributions from others, but rather about the autonomy of candidates regarding their personal funds in their campaigns.