Speech and Expression
Campaign Finance and Speech
Buckley v. Valeo (1976)
424 U.S. 1 (1976)
Vote: 8-0
Decision: Reversed in part and affirmed in part
Majority: Per curiam, joined by Brennan, Stewart, Powell; Marshall (all but I-C-2); Blackmun (all but I-B); Rehnquist (all but III-B-1); Burger (parts I-C and IV (except as it accords de facto validity for the Commission’s past acts)); White (part III)
Concur/dissent: Burger
Concur/dissent: White
Concur/dissent: Marshall
Concur/dissent: Blackmun
Concur/dissent: Rehnquist
Not participating: Stevens
PER CURIAM.
These appeals present constitutional challenges to the key provisions of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 (Act), and related provisions of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954, all as amended in 1974 … The complaint sought both a declaratory judgment that the major provisions of the Act were unconstitutional and an injunction against enforcement of those provisions …
In this Court, appellants argue that the Court of Appeals failed to give this legislation the critical scrutiny demanded under accepted First Amendment and equal protection principles. In appellants’ view, limiting the use of money for political purposes constitutes a restriction on communication violative of the First Amendment, since virtually all meaningful political communications in the modern setting involve the expenditure of money. Further, they argue that the reporting and disclosure provisions of the Act unconstitutionally impinge on their right to freedom of association …
At the outset, we must determine whether the case before us presents a “case or controversy” within the meaning of Art. III of the Constitution. Congress may not, of course, require this Court to render opinions in matters which are not “cases or controversies.” Aetna Life Ins. Co. v. Haworth, (1937) …
The constitutional power of Congress to regulate federal elections is well established and is not questioned by any of the parties in this case. Thus, the critical constitutional questions presented here go not to the basic power of Congress to legislate in this area, but to whether the specific legislation that Congress has enacted interferes with First Amendment freedoms or invidiously discriminates against nonincumbent candidates and minor parties in contravention of the Fifth Amendment …
The Act’s contribution and expenditure limitations operate in an area of the most fundamental First Amendment activities. Discussion of public issues and debate on the qualifications of candidates are integral to the operation of the system of government established by our Constitution. The First Amendment affords the broadest protection to such political expression in order “to assure [the] unfettered interchange of ideas for the bringing about of political and social changes desired by the people.” Roth v. United States, (1957) …
In upholding the constitutional validity of the Act’s contribution and expenditure provisions on the ground that those provisions sh