randall
et
al
sorrell
et
argued
february
decided
june
vermont
act
stringently
limits
amounts
candidates
state
office
may
spend
campaigns
amounts
individuals
organizations
political
parties
may
contribute
campaigns
soon
act
became
law
petitioners
individuals
run
state
office
citizens
vote
state
elections
contribute
campaigns
political
parties
committees
participating
state
politics
brought
suit
respondents
state
officials
charged
enforcing
act
district
held
act
expenditure
limits
violate
first
amendment
see
buckley
valeo
act
limits
political
parties
contributions
candidates
unconstitutional
found
contribution
limits
constitutional
second
circuit
held
act
contribution
limits
constitutional
ruled
expenditure
limits
may
constitutional
supported
compelling
interests
preventing
corruption
appearance
limiting
time
state
officials
must
spend
raising
campaign
funds
remanded
district
determine
whether
expenditure
limits
narrowly
tailored
interests
held
judgment
reversed
cases
remanded
reversed
remanded
justice
breyer
joined
chief
justice
justice
alito
concluded
parts
iii
iv
act
sets
limitations
inconsistent
first
amendment
pp
expenditure
limits
violate
first
amendment
free
speech
guarantees
buckley
pp
buckley
held
inter
alia
government
asserted
interest
preventing
corruption
appearance
corruption
pp
respondents
argue
unpersuasively
buckley
distinguished
present
cases
ground
say
buckley
consider
expenditure
limits
help
protect
candidates
spending
much
time
raising
money
rather
devoting
time
campaigning
among
ordinary
voters
significant
basis
distinction
act
expenditure
limits
substantially
different
issue
buckley
vermont
primary
justification
imposing
expenditure
limits
significantly
different
congress
rationale
buckley
limits
preventing
corruption
appearance
respondents
say
unpersuasively
buckley
considered
time
protection
rationale
expenditure
limits
upheld
limits
feca
buckley
however
aware
connection
expenditure
limits
reduction
fundraising
time
event
connection
seems
perfectly
obvious
circumstances
respondents
argument
amounts
invitation
limit
buckley
holding
effectively
overrule
invitation
declined
pp
act
contribution
limits
violate
first
amendment
limits
specific
details
burden
protected
interests
manner
disproportionate
public
purposes
enacted
advance
pp
upholding
contribution
limit
buckley
recognized
inter
alia
limits
unlike
expenditure
limits
involv
little
direct
restraint
contributor
speech
pp
although
scalpel
probe
danger
signs
act
contribution
limits
may
fall
outside
tolerable
first
amendment
limits
present
substantially
lower
limits
previously
upheld
comparable
limits
force
consequently
record
must
examined
determine
whether
act
contribution
limits
closely
drawn
match
state
interests
pp
record
demonstrates
constitutional
perspective
act
contribution
limits
restrictive
five
sets
factors
taken
together
lead
conclusion
limits
narrowly
tailored
first
record
suggests
though
conclusively
prove
act
contribution
limits
significantly
restrict
amount
funding
available
challengers
run
competitive
campaigns
second
act
insistence
political
party
affiliates
together
abide
exactly
low
contribution
limits
apply
individual
contributors
threatens
harm
particularly
important
political
right
right
associate
political
party
see
california
democratic
party
jones
although
upheld
federal
limits
political
parties
contributions
candidates
federal
election
colorado
republican
federal
campaign
limits
issue
far
less
problematic
significantly
higher
act
limits
see
much
higher
federal
limits
contributions
individuals
candidates
see
third
act
treatment
volunteer
services
aggravates
problem
although
act
excludes
uncompensated
volunteer
services
contribution
definition
exclude
expenses
volunteers
incur
travel
expenses
course
campaign
activities
combination
low
contribution
limits
absence
exception
excluding
volunteer
expenses
may
well
impede
campaign
ability
effectively
use
volunteers
thereby
making
difficult
individuals
associate
way
cf
buckley
supra
fourth
unlike
contribution
limits
upheld
shrink
act
limits
adjusted
inflation
decline
real
value
year
failure
index
limits
means
limits
already
suspiciously
low
almost
inevitably
become
low
time
fifth
nowhere
record
special
justification
act
low
restrictive
contribution
limits
rather
basic
justifications
state
advanced
support
limits
present
buckley
indeed
things
equal
one
might
reasonably
believe
contribution
say
candidate
campaign
less
likely
prove
corruptive
force
far
larger
contributions
issue
campaign
finance
cases
considered
pp
possible
sever
act
contribution
limit
provisions
others
might
remain
fully
operative
require
write
words
statute
inflation
indexing
leave
gaping
loopholes
limits
party
contributions
foresee
many
different
possible
ways
vermont
legislature
might
respond
constitutional
objections
act
circumstances
legislature
likely
intended
set
aside
statute
contribution
limits
legislature
free
rewrite
provisions
address
constitutional
difficulties
identified
pp
justice
breyer
joined
chief
justice
parts
rejected
respondents
argument
buckley
effect
overruled
subsequent
experience
shown
contribution
limits
alone
effectively
deter
corruption
appearance
stare
decisis
basic
legal
principle
commanding
judicial
respect
earlier
decisions
rules
law
prevents
overruling
buckley
adherence
precedent
norm
departure
exceptional
requiring
special
justification
arizona
rumsey
especially
principle
issue
become
settled
iteration
reiteration
long
period
special
justification
subsequent
case
law
made
buckley
legal
anomaly
otherwise
undermined
basic
legal
principles
cf
dickerson
demonstration
circumstances
changed
radically
undermine
buckley
critical
factual
assumptions
respondents
shown
example
dramatic
increase
corruption
appearance
vermont
shown
expenditure
limits
way
attack
problem
cf
mcconnell
supra
finally
overruling
buckley
dramatically
undermine
considerable
reliance
congress
state
legislatures
placed
upon
drafting
campaign
finance
laws
followed
buckley
upholding
applying
reasoning
later
cases
pp
justice
alito
agreed
act
expenditure
contribution
limits
violate
first
amendment
concluded
respondents
backup
argument
asking
revisit
buckley
valeo
need
reached
failed
address
considerations
stare
decisis
pp
justice
kennedy
agreed
vermont
limitations
campaign
expenditures
contributions
violate
first
amendment
concluded
given
skepticism
regarding
campaign
finance
jurisprudence
see
mcconnell
federal
election
appropriate
concur
judgment
pp
justice
thomas
joined
justice
scalia
agreed
vermont
act
unconstitutional
disagreed
plurality
rationale
striking
statute
buckley
valeo
provides
insufficient
protection
political
speech
core
first
amendment
therefore
illegitimate
protected
stare
decisis
overruled
replaced
standard
faithful
amendment
erred
buckley
distinguished
contribution
expenditure
limits
finding
former
less
severe
infringement
first
amendment
rights
see
nixon
shrink
missouri
government
pac
contribution
expenditure
restrictions
act
subjected
strict
scrutiny
fail
see
colorado
republican
federal
campaign
comm
federal
election
pp
breyer
announced
judgment
delivered
opinion
roberts
joined
alito
joined
parts
alito
filed
opinion
concurring
part
concurring
judgment
kennedy
filed
opinion
concurring
judgment
thomas
filed
opinion
concurring
judgment
scalia
joined
stevens
filed
dissenting
opinion
souter
filed
dissenting
opinion
ginsburg
joined
stevens
joined
parts
ii
iii
neil
randall
et
petitioners
william
sorrell
et
al
vermont
republican
state
committee
et
petitioners
william
sorrell
et
al
william
sorrell
et
petitioners
neil
randall
et
al
writs
certiorari
appeals
second
circuit
june
justice
breyer
announced
judgment
delivered
opinion
chief
justice
joins
justice
alito
joins
except
parts
consider
constitutionality
vermont
campaign
finance
statute
limits
amounts
candidates
state
office
may
spend
campaigns
expenditure
limitations
amounts
individuals
organizations
political
parties
may
contribute
campaigns
contribution
limitations
stat
tit
et
seq
hold
sets
limitations
inconsistent
first
amendment
precedent
makes
clear
expenditure
limits
violate
first
amendment
buckley
valeo
per
curiam
contribution
limits
unconstitutional
specific
details
involving
low
maximum
levels
restrictions
fail
satisfy
first
amendment
requirement
careful
tailoring
say
impose
burdens
upon
first
amendment
interests
viewed
light
statute
legitimate
objectives
disproportionately
severe
prior
vermont
campaign
finance
law
imposed
limit
upon
amount
candidate
state
office
spend
however
impose
limits
upon
amounts
individuals
corporations
political
committees
contribute
campaign
candidate
individuals
corporations
contribute
candidate
state
office
political
committees
excluding
political
parties
contribute
statute
imposed
limit
amount
political
parties
contribute
candidates
vermont
enacted
stringent
campaign
finance
law
pub
act
codified
stat
tit
et
seq
hereinafter
act
act
statute
issue
act
took
effect
immediately
elections
imposes
mandatory
expenditure
limits
total
amount
candidate
state
office
spend
general
election
cycle
primary
plus
general
election
approximately
following
amounts
governor
lieutenant
governor
statewide
offices
state
senator
plus
additional
additional
seat
district
state
representative
district
state
representative
single
member
district
limits
adjusted
inflation
years
based
consumer
price
index
incumbents
seeking
reelection
statewide
office
may
spend
amounts
incumbents
seeking
reelection
state
senate
house
may
spend
amounts
act
defines
xpenditure
broadly
mean
payment
disbursement
distribution
advance
deposit
loan
gift
money
anything
value
paid
promised
paid
purpose
influencing
election
advocating
position
public
question
supporting
opposing
one
candidates
certain
minor
exceptions
expenditures
made
candidate
behalf
others
count
candidate
expenditure
limit
expenditures
intentionally
facilitated
solicited
approved
candidate
campaign
provisions
apply
count
campaign
expenditure
limit
spending
political
parties
committees
coordinated
campaign
benefits
candidate
party
expenditure
primarily
benefits
six
fewer
candidates
associated
political
party
presumed
coordinated
campaign
therefore
count
campaign
expenditure
limit
act
also
imposes
strict
contribution
limits
amount
single
individual
contribute
campaign
candidate
state
office
general
election
cycle
limited
follows
governor
lieutenant
governor
statewide
offices
state
senator
state
representative
unlike
expenditure
limits
act
contribution
limits
indexed
inflation
political
committee
subject
limits
ibid
political
party
defined
broadly
include
subsidiary
branch
local
unit
party
well
national
regional
affiliates
party
taken
separately
together
thus
example
statute
treats
local
state
national
affiliates
democratic
party
single
entity
limits
total
contribution
single
candidate
campaign
governor
primary
general
election
together
act
also
imposes
limit
upon
amount
individual
give
political
party
general
election
cycle
act
defines
contribution
broadly
approximately
way
defines
expenditure
expenditure
made
candidate
behalf
counts
contribution
candidate
intentionally
facilitated
solicited
approved
candidate
party
expenditure
primarily
benefits
six
fewer
candidates
associated
party
presumed
count
party
contribution
limits
exceptions
candidate
contributions
campaign
candidate
family
fall
outside
contribution
limits
volunteer
services
count
contributions
cost
function
provided
total
cost
function
amounts
less
addition
expenditure
contribution
limits
act
sets
forth
disclosure
reporting
requirements
creates
voluntary
public
financing
system
gubernatorial
elections
none
issue
act
also
limits
amount
contributions
candidate
political
committee
political
party
receive
sources
lower
courts
held
contribution
limits
unconstitutional
parties
challenge
holding
petitioners
individuals
run
state
office
vermont
citizens
vote
vermont
elections
contribute
vermont
campaigns
political
parties
committees
participate
vermont
politics
soon
act
became
law
brought
lawsuit
federal
district
respondents
state
officials
charged
enforcement
act
several
private
groups
individual
citizens
intervened
district
proceedings
support
act
joined
respondents
well
district
agreed
petitioners
act
expenditure
limits
violate
first
amendment
see
buckley
also
held
unconstitutional
act
limits
contributions
political
parties
candidates
time
found
act
contribution
limits
constitutional
landell
sorrell
supp
sides
appealed
divided
panel
appeals
second
circuit
held
act
contribution
limits
constitutional
also
held
act
expenditure
limits
may
constitutional
landell
sorrell
found
limits
supported
two
compelling
interests
namely
interest
preventing
corruption
appearance
corruption
interest
limiting
amount
time
state
officials
must
spend
raising
campaign
funds
circuit
remanded
case
district
instructions
determine
whether
act
expenditure
limits
narrowly
tailored
interests
petitioners
respondents
sought
certiorari
asked
us
consider
constitutionality
act
expenditure
limits
contribution
limits
related
definitional
provision
agreed
ii
turn
first
act
expenditure
limits
limits
violate
first
amendment
free
speech
guarantees
buckley
valeo
supra
considered
constitutionality
federal
election
campaign
act
feca
stat
amended
et
statute
much
like
act
us
imposed
expenditure
contribution
limitations
campaigns
public
office
upholding
feca
contribution
limitations
constitutional
held
statute
expenditure
limitations
violated
first
amendment
buckley
stated
kinds
limitations
implicate
fundamental
first
amendment
interests
noted
government
sought
justify
statute
infringement
interests
terms
need
prevent
corruption
appearance
corruption
see
also
view
rationale
provided
sufficient
justification
statute
contribution
limitations
provide
sufficient
justification
expenditure
limitations
explained
basic
reason
difference
two
kinds
limitations
expenditure
limitations
impose
significantly
severe
restrictions
protected
freedoms
political
expression
association
contribution
limitations
contribution
limitations
though
marginal
restriction
upon
contributor
ability
engage
free
communication
nevertheless
leave
contributor
fre
discuss
candidates
issues
expenditure
limitations
contrast
impose
restriction
amount
money
person
group
spend
political
communication
campaign
thereby
necessarily
reduc
quantity
expression
restricting
number
issues
discussed
depth
exploration
size
audience
reached
ibid
indeed
freedom
engage
unlimited
political
expression
subject
ceiling
expenditures
like
free
drive
automobile
far
often
one
desires
single
tank
gasoline
concluded
governmental
interest
suggested
sufficient
justify
restriction
quantity
political
expression
imposed
statute
expenditure
limitations
decided
government
primary
justification
expenditure
limitations
preventing
corruption
appearance
adequately
addressed
act
contribution
limitations
disclosure
requirements
ibid
also
considered
governmental
interests
advanced
support
expenditure
limitations
rejected
consequently
held
expenditure
limitations
constitutionally
invalid
last
years
considering
constitutionality
host
different
campaign
finance
statutes
repeatedly
adhered
buckley
constraints
including
expenditure
limits
see
mcconnell
federal
election
federal
election
colorado
republican
federal
campaign
colorado
ii
nixon
shrink
missouri
government
pac
shrink
colorado
republican
federal
campaign
comm
federal
election
colorado
plurality
opinion
federal
election
massachusetts
citizens
life
federal
election
national
conservative
political
action
ncpac
california
medical
assn
federal
election
plurality
opinion
respondents
recognize
respect
expenditure
limits
buckley
appears
controlling
unfavorable
precedent
seek
overcome
precedent
two
ways
first
ask
us
effect
overrule
buckley
experience
believe
shown
contribution
limits
disclosure
requirements
alone
effectively
deter
corruption
appearance
hence
experience
undermined
assumption
underlying
case
indeed
respondents
devoted
several
pages
briefs
attacking
buckley
holding
expenditure
limits
see
brief
vermont
public
interest
research
group
et
al
arguing
sound
reasons
exist
revisit
applicable
standard
review
expenditure
limits
brief
william
sorrell
et
al
arguing
revisit
buckley
consider
alternative
constitutional
approaches
spending
limits
second
alternative
ask
us
limit
scope
buckley
significantly
distinguishing
buckley
present
case
advance
ground
distinction
justification
expenditure
limitations
say
buckley
consider
namely
limits
help
protect
candidates
spending
much
time
raising
money
rather
devoting
time
campaigning
among
ordinary
voters
find
neither
argument
persuasive
often
recognized
fundamental
importance
stare
decisis
basic
legal
principle
commands
judicial
respect
earlier
decisions
rules
law
embody
see
harris
plurality
opinion
citing
numerous
cases
pointed
stare
decisis
evenhanded
predictable
consistent
development
legal
principles
fosters
reliance
judicial
decisions
contributes
actual
perceived
integrity
judicial
process
international
business
machines
quoting
payne
tennessee
stare
decisis
thereby
avoids
instability
unfairness
accompany
disruption
settled
legal
expectations
reason
rule
law
demands
adhering
prior
case
law
norm
departure
precedent
exceptional
requires
special
justification
arizona
rumsey
especially
true
principle
become
settled
iteration
reiteration
long
period
time
find
special
justification
require
us
overrule
buckley
subsequent
case
law
made
buckley
legal
anomaly
otherwise
undermined
basic
legal
principles
cf
dickerson
find
respondents
claims
demonstration
circumstances
changed
radically
undermine
buckley
critical
factual
assumptions
respondents
shown
example
dramatic
increase
corruption
appearance
vermont
shown
expenditure
limits
way
attack
problem
cf
mcconnell
fec
time
buckley
promoted
considerable
reliance
congress
state
legislatures
used
buckley
drafting
campaign
finance
laws
said
followed
buckley
upholding
applying
reasoning
later
cases
overruling
buckley
dramatically
undermine
reliance
settled
precedent
reasons
find
case
fits
stare
decisis
norm
perceive
strong
justification
necessary
warrant
overruling
well
established
precedent
consequently
decline
respondents
invitation
reconsider
buckley
respondents
also
ask
us
distinguish
cases
buckley
find
significant
basis
distinction
act
expenditure
limits
substantially
different
issue
buckley
instances
limits
consist
dollar
cap
imposed
upon
candidate
expenditures
vermont
primary
justification
imposing
expenditure
limits
significantly
different
congress
rationale
buckley
limits
preventing
corruption
appearance
sole
basis
respondents
seek
distinguish
buckley
concerns
supporting
justification
argue
expenditure
limits
necessary
order
reduce
amount
time
candidates
must
spend
raising
money
brief
vermont
public
interest
research
group
et
al
brief
william
sorrell
et
al
increased
campaign
costs
together
fear
opponent
mean
without
expenditure
limits
candidate
must
spend
much
time
raising
money
instead
meeting
voters
engaging
public
debate
buckley
respondents
add
fully
consider
justification
done
say
upheld
struck
feca
expenditure
limits
view
highly
unlikely
fuller
consideration
time
protection
rationale
changed
buckley
result
buckley
aware
connection
expenditure
limits
reduction
fundraising
time
section
opinion
dealing
feca
public
financing
provisions
wrote
congress
trying
free
candidates
rigors
fundraising
see
also
imits
contributions
necessarily
increase
burden
fundraising
public
financing
designed
part
relieve
presidential
candidates
rigors
soliciting
private
contributions
white
concurring
part
dissenting
part
appeals
opinion
briefs
filed
pointed
natural
consequence
higher
campaign
expenditures
candidates
compelled
allow
fund
raising
increasing
extreme
amounts
money
energy
buckley
valeo
cadc
see
also
brief
et
al
amici
curiae
buckley
valeo
nos
fund
raising
consumes
candidate
time
otherwise
devoted
campaigning
event
connection
high
campaign
expenditures
increased
fundraising
demands
seems
perfectly
obvious
circumstances
respondents
argument
amounts
invitation
limit
buckley
holding
effectively
overrule
reasons
set
forth
decline
invitation
well
given
buckley
continued
authority
must
conclude
act
expenditure
limits
violate
first
amendment
iii
turn
complex
question
namely
constitutionality
act
contribution
limits
parties
accepting
buckley
approach
dispute
whether
despite
buckley
general
approval
statutes
limit
campaign
contributions
act
contribution
limits
severe
circumstances
particular
limits
violate
first
amendment
act
expenditure
limits
begin
buckley
case
upheld
contribution
limit
buckley
recognized
contribution
limits
like
expenditure
limits
implicate
fundamental
first
amendment
interests
namely
freedoms
political
expression
political
association
unlike
expenditure
limits
necessarily
reduc
quantity
expression
restricting
number
issues
discussed
depth
exploration
size
audience
reached
contribution
limits
involv
little
direct
restraint
contributor
speech
restrict
one
aspect
contributor
freedom
political
association
namely
contributor
ability
support
favored
candidate
nonetheless
permi
symbolic
expression
support
evidenced
contribution
way
infringe
contributor
freedom
discuss
candidates
issues
consequently
wrote
contribution
limitations
permissible
long
government
demonstrates
limits
closely
drawn
match
sufficiently
important
interest
found
interest
advanced
case
prevent
ing
corruption
appearance
sufficiently
important
justify
statute
contribution
limits
also
found
contribution
limits
closely
drawn
recognized
determining
whether
particular
contribution
limit
closely
drawn
amount
level
limit
make
difference
indeed
wrote
contribution
restrictions
severe
impact
political
dialogue
limitations
prevented
candidates
political
committees
amassing
resources
necessary
effective
advocacy
added
distinctions
degree
become
significant
said
amount
differences
kind
pointing
scalpel
probe
whether
say
ceiling
might
serve
well
found
indication
contribution
limitations
imposed
act
dramatic
adverse
effect
funding
campaigns
therefore
found
limitations
constitutional
since
buckley
consistently
upheld
contribution
limits
statutes
shrink
limit
contributions
candidates
missouri
state
auditor
california
medical
limit
contributions
multicandidate
political
committees
recognized
however
contribution
limits
might
sometimes
work
harm
protected
first
amendment
interests
anticorruption
objectives
justify
see
shrink
supra
buckley
supra
individual
members
expressed
concern
lest
low
limit
magnify
advantages
incumbency
thereby
insulat
legislators
effective
electoral
challenge
shrink
supra
breyer
joined
ginsburg
concurring
cases
us
petitioners
challenge
act
contribution
limits
basis
following
buckley
must
determine
whether
act
contribution
limits
prevent
candidates
amassing
resources
necessary
effective
campaign
advocacy
whether
magnify
advantages
incumbency
point
put
challengers
significant
disadvantage
word
whether
low
strict
survive
first
amendment
scrutiny
answering
questions
recognize
buckley
stated
scalpel
probe
possible
contribution
level
determine
degree
exactitude
precise
restriction
necessary
carry
statute
legitimate
objectives
practice
legislature
better
equipped
make
empirical
judgments
legislators
particular
expertise
matters
related
costs
nature
running
office
mcconnell
thus
ordinarily
deferred
legislature
determination
matters
nonetheless
buckley
acknowledged
must
recognize
existence
lower
bound
point
constitutional
risks
democratic
electoral
process
become
great
interests
underlying
contribution
limits
preventing
corruption
appearance
corruption
directly
implicate
integrity
electoral
process
mcconnell
supra
internal
quotation
marks
omitted
yet
rationale
simply
mean
lower
limit
better
contribution
limits
low
also
harm
electoral
process
preventing
challengers
mounting
effective
campaigns
incumbent
officeholders
thereby
reducing
democratic
accountability
ignore
fact
statute
seeks
regulate
campaign
contributions
prove
obstacle
electoral
fairness
seeks
promote
thus
see
alternative
exercise
independent
judicial
judgment
statute
reaches
outer
limits
strong
indication
particular
case
danger
signs
risks
exist
present
kind
likely
serious
degree
courts
including
appellate
courts
must
review
record
independently
carefully
eye
toward
assessing
statute
tailoring
toward
assessing
proportionality
restrictions
see
bose
consumers
union
appellate
obligation
independent
examination
whole
record
order
make
sure
judgment
constitute
forbidden
intrusion
field
free
quoting
new
york
times
sullivan
find
danger
signs
present
compared
contribution
limits
upheld
past
force
act
limits
sufficiently
low
generate
suspicion
closely
drawn
act
sets
limits
per
election
cycle
includes
primary
general
election
thus
gubernatorial
race
primary
final
election
contests
act
contribution
limit
amounts
per
election
per
candidate
significantly
lower
limits
contributions
candidates
state
senate
house
representatives
see
supra
limits
apply
contributions
individuals
contributions
political
parties
whether
made
cash
expenditures
coordinated
presumed
coordinated
candidate
see
supra
limits
well
limits
upheld
buckley
indeed
terms
real
dollars
adjusting
inflation
act
per
election
limit
individual
contributions
campaign
governor
slightly
limit
contributions
campaigns
federal
office
buckley
adjusted
reflect
value
year
buckley
decided
vermont
contribution
limit
campaigns
statewide
office
including
governor
amounts
per
election
cycle
roughly
per
election
compared
per
election
limit
individual
contributions
issue
buckley
adjusted
value
act
limit
contributions
political
parties
candidates
statewide
office
per
candidate
per
election
one
comparable
limit
buckley
per
election
yet
vermont
gubernatorial
district
entire
state
smaller
house
districts
buckley
limits
applied
average
congressional
district
contained
population
dept
commerce
bureau
census
statistical
abstract
statistical
abstract
describing
results
census
indeed
vermont
population
larger
statistical
abstract
describing
vermont
population
moreover
considered
whole
vermont
contribution
limits
lowest
nation
act
limits
contributions
candidates
statewide
office
including
governor
per
candidate
per
election
found
state
imposes
lower
per
election
limit
indeed
found
seven
impose
limits
contributions
candidates
statewide
office
per
election
twice
act
limit
cf
rev
stat
ann
west
cum
supp
per
election
cycle
per
election
adjusted
inflation
colo
art
xxviii
per
election
adjusted
inflation
stat
per
election
rev
stat
tit
governor
statewide
office
per
election
mass
laws
ch
west
supp
per
year
per
election
mont
code
ann
governor
statewide
office
per
election
codified
laws
per
year
per
election
aware
state
imposes
limit
contributions
political
parties
candidates
statewide
office
lower
act
per
candidate
per
election
limit
cf
rev
stat
tit
next
lowest
contribution
party
candidate
governor
contribution
party
candidate
statewide
office
per
election
similarly
found
three
limits
contributions
candidates
state
legislature
act
per
election
limits
rev
stat
ann
west
cum
supp
per
election
cycle
per
election
mont
code
ann
per
election
codified
laws
per
year
per
election
aware
state
lower
limit
contributions
political
parties
state
legislative
candidates
cf
rev
stat
tit
next
lowest
per
election
finally
vermont
limit
well
lowest
limit
previously
upheld
limit
per
election
adjusted
inflation
every
two
years
see
mo
rev
stat
cum
supp
candidates
missouri
state
auditor
shrink
comparable
vermont
limit
roughly
per
election
adjusted
inflation
less
missouri
current
limit
recognize
vermont
population
much
smaller
missouri
indeed
vermont
size
missouri
statistical
abstract
thus
per
citizen
vermont
limit
slightly
generous
ratio
contribution
limit
size
constituency
vermont
missouri
ratio
lower
cf
app
calculation
necessarily
mean
vermont
limits
less
objectionable
limit
upheld
shrink
campaign
state
auditor
likely
less
costly
campaign
governor
campaign
costs
automatically
increase
decrease
precise
proportion
size
electoral
district
see
app
winning
candidate
vermont
state
auditor
spent
winning
candidate
governor
spent
big
picture
cycle
hot
races
available
http
visited
june
available
clerk
case
file
senate
campaigns
identified
competitive
spend
less
per
voter
house
campaigns
identified
competitive
moreover
vermont
limits
unlike
missouri
limits
apply
amounts
contributions
made
political
parties
mo
rev
stat
enacting
limits
contributions
political
parties
candidates
times
higher
limits
contributions
individuals
said
missouri
current
per
election
limit
unlike
vermont
per
election
limit
indexed
inflation
see
supra
see
also
mo
rev
stat
factors
mentioned
offset
neutralizing
force
population
differences
least
make
difficult
treat
shrink
limit
providing
affirmative
support
lawfulness
vermont
far
lower
levels
cf
breyer
concurring
shrink
limit
low
enough
raise
significant
constitutional
question
even
vermont
failure
index
inflation
means
vermont
levels
soon
far
lower
missouri
regardless
method
comparison
sum
act
contribution
limits
substantially
lower
limits
previously
upheld
comparable
limits
danger
signs
act
contribution
limits
may
fall
outside
tolerable
first
amendment
limits
consequently
must
examine
record
independently
carefully
determine
whether
act
contribution
limits
closely
drawn
match
state
interests
examination
record
convinces
us
constitutional
perspective
act
contribution
limits
restrictive
reach
conclusion
based
merely
low
dollar
amounts
limits
also
statute
effect
political
parties
volunteer
activity
vermont
elections
taken
together
act
substantial
restrictions
ability
candidates
raise
funds
necessary
run
competitive
election
ability
political
parties
help
candidates
get
elected
ability
individual
citizens
volunteer
time
campaigns
show
act
closely
drawn
meet
objectives
particular
five
factors
together
lead
us
decision
first
record
suggests
though
conclusively
prove
act
contribution
limits
significantly
restrict
amount
funding
available
challengers
run
competitive
campaigns
one
thing
petitioners
expert
clark
bensen
conducted
analysis
legislative
elections
last
take
place
act
took
effect
concluded
act
contribution
limits
reduced
funds
available
republican
challengers
competitive
races
amounts
ranging
total
campaign
income
see
tr
estimating
loss
funds
candidate
tully
harvey
welch
bahre
delaney
larocque
smith
brown
another
thing
petitioners
expert
witnesses
produced
evidence
analysis
showing
vermont
political
parties
particularly
republican
party
target
contributions
candidates
competitive
races
contributions
represent
significant
amount
total
candidate
funding
races
contribution
limits
cut
parties
contributions
competitive
races
dramatically
see
see
also
gierzynski
breaux
role
parties
legislative
campaign
financing
rev
politics
thompson
cassie
jewell
sacred
cow
lot
bull
party
pac
money
state
legislative
elections
pol
sci
statistics
showed
party
contributions
accounted
significant
percentage
total
campaign
income
races
studies
showed
act
contribution
limits
cut
party
contributions
legislature
average
governor
specifically
bensen
pointed
republican
party
made
contributions
senate
campaigns
amounts
averaged
average
represented
recipient
campaign
total
income
tr
act
reduce
contributions
per
campaign
average
reduction
ibid
party
contributed
house
campaigns
amounts
averaging
average
represented
recipient
campaign
total
income
act
reduce
contributions
per
campaign
average
reduction
ibid
party
contributed
gubernatorial
candidate
amount
accounted
candidate
funding
act
reduced
contribution
bensen
added
senate
campaigns
house
campaigns
exceeded
act
expenditure
limits
enacted
along
statute
contribution
limits
trial
exhs
etc
exh
moreover
senate
campaigns
house
campaigns
spent
double
limits
ibid
respondents
contest
figures
rather
presented
evidence
focused
upon
strongly
contested
campaigns
upon
funding
amounts
available
average
campaign
respondents
expert
anthony
gierzynski
concluded
example
act
minimal
effect
candidates
ability
raise
funds
app
rested
conclusion
upon
finding
small
proportion
contributions
campaigns
state
office
made
last
three
elections
affected
new
limits
see
also
discussing
average
amount
revenues
lost
limits
legislative
races
emphasis
added
discussing
total
number
campaigns
receiving
contributions
act
limit
lower
courts
similarly
relied
almost
exclusively
averages
assessing
act
effect
see
supp
approximately
campaign
contributions
recent
house
races
emphasis
added
expert
testimony
revealed
last
three
election
cycles
percentage
candidates
contributions
received
contribution
limits
less
emphasis
added
respondents
evidence
leaves
petitioners
evidence
unrebutted
certain
key
respects
critical
question
concerns
simply
average
effect
contribution
limits
fundraising
importantly
ability
candidate
running
incumbent
officeholder
mount
effective
challenge
information
average
races
rather
competitive
races
distantly
related
question
competitive
races
likely
far
expensive
average
race
see
ornstein
mann
malbin
vital
statistics
congress
pp
data
showing
spending
competitive
elections
incumbent
wins
less
vote
incumbent
loses
far
greater
elections
incumbent
wins
vote
concede
record
contain
anecdotal
evidence
supporting
respondents
position
namely
testimony
competitive
mayoral
campaign
burlington
suggests
challenger
amas
resources
necessary
effective
advocacy
buckley
facts
particular
election
described
sufficient
detail
offer
convincing
refutation
implication
arising
petitioners
experts
studies
rather
petitioners
studies
taken
together
low
average
vermont
campaign
expenditures
typically
higher
costs
challenger
must
bear
overcome
advantage
enjoyed
incumbent
raise
reasonable
inference
contribution
limits
low
may
pose
significant
obstacle
candidates
competitive
elections
cf
ornstein
supra
house
senate
elections
successful
challengers
spent
far
average
candidate
information
average
races
rebut
inference
consequently
inference
amounts
one
factor
among
others
counts
constitutional
validity
contribution
limits
second
act
insistence
political
parties
abide
exactly
low
contribution
limits
apply
contributors
threatens
harm
particularly
important
political
right
right
associate
political
party
see
california
democratic
party
jones
describing
constitutional
importance
associating
political
parties
elect
candidates
timmons
twin
cities
area
new
party
colorado
cf
buckley
supra
contribution
limits
constitute
marginal
restriction
first
amendment
rights
contributor
remains
free
associate
politically
political
party
assist
personally
party
efforts
behalf
candidates
act
applies
limits
precisely
limits
applies
individual
virtually
affiliates
political
party
taken
together
single
contributor
stat
tit
means
example
vermont
democratic
party
taken
together
local
affiliates
make
one
contribution
democratic
gubernatorial
candidate
one
contribution
democratic
candidate
state
senate
one
contribution
democratic
candidate
state
house
representatives
act
includes
within
limits
direct
monetary
contributions
also
expenditures
kind
stamps
stationery
coffee
doughnuts
gasoline
campaign
buttons
forth
see
indeed
includes
party
expenditures
intended
promote
election
specific
candidate
group
candidates
long
candidate
campaign
facilitate
solicit
approve
party
expenditure
primarily
benefits
six
fewer
candidates
associated
party
presumed
count
party
contribution
limits
addition
negative
effect
amassing
funds
described
see
supra
act
severely
limit
ability
party
assist
candidates
campaigns
engaging
coordinated
spending
advertising
candidate
events
voter
lists
mass
mailings
even
yard
signs
unusual
degree
discourage
wish
contribute
small
amounts
money
party
amounts
easily
comply
individual
contribution
limits
suppose
many
individuals
know
vermont
legislative
candidates
personally
wish
contribute
say
state
republican
party
intent
party
use
money
help
elect
whichever
candidates
party
believes
best
advance
ideals
interests
basic
object
political
party
take
extreme
example
imagine
vermont
citizens
want
give
state
democratic
party
though
unfamiliar
details
individual
races
like
make
small
financial
contribution
goal
electing
democratic
state
legislature
imagine
party
believes
control
legislature
depend
outcome
three
three
house
races
act
forbids
party
giving
candidates
pivotal
races
indeed
permits
party
give
candidate
thereby
thwarting
aims
donors
making
meaningful
contribution
state
politics
giving
small
amount
money
party
support
thus
act
severely
inhibit
collective
political
activity
preventing
political
party
using
contributions
small
donors
provide
meaningful
assistance
individual
candidate
see
supra
recognize
previously
upheld
limits
contributions
political
parties
candidates
particular
federal
limits
coordinated
party
spending
colorado
ii
also
recognize
limit
negatively
affect
extent
party
function
described
contribution
limits
issue
colorado
ii
far
less
problematic
significantly
higher
act
limits
see
least
coordinated
spending
direct
cash
contributions
senate
candidates
least
coordinated
spending
direct
cash
contributions
house
candidates
much
higher
federal
limits
contributions
individuals
candidates
thereby
reflecting
effort
congress
balance
need
allow
individuals
participate
political
process
contributing
political
parties
help
elect
candidates
need
prevent
use
political
parties
circumvent
contribution
limits
apply
individuals
act
placing
identical
limits
upon
contributions
candidates
whether
made
individual
political
party
gives
former
consideration
weight
consequently
agree
district
act
contribution
limits
reduce
voice
political
parties
vermont
whisper
supp
count
special
harms
act
threatens
factor
weighing
constitutional
validity
contribution
limits
third
act
treatment
volunteer
services
aggravates
problem
like
federal
statutory
counterpart
act
excludes
definition
contribution
services
provided
without
compensation
individuals
volunteering
time
behalf
candidate
stat
tit
cf
ed
supp
iii
similar
exemption
federal
campaign
finance
statute
act
exclude
expenses
volunteers
incur
travel
expenses
course
campaign
activities
act
broad
definitions
seem
count
expenses
volunteer
contribution
limit
least
spending
facilitated
approved
campaign
officials
stat
tit
xpenditure
includes
anything
value
paid
purpose
influencing
election
expenditure
intentionally
facilitated
solicited
approved
candidate
counts
contribution
unlike
federal
government
treatment
comparable
requirements
state
insofar
aware
created
exception
excluding
expenses
cf
iv
ix
ed
supp
iii
excluding
definition
contribution
volunteer
travel
expenses
payment
political
party
campaign
materials
used
connection
volunteer
activities
absence
exception
may
matter
present
context
contribution
limits
low
combination
low
limits
exceptions
means
gubernatorial
campaign
volunteer
makes
four
five
round
trips
driving
across
state
performing
volunteer
activities
coordinated
campaign
find
near
surpassed
contribution
limit
volunteer
offers
campaign
use
house
along
coffee
doughnuts
dozen
neighbors
meet
candidate
say
two
three
times
campaign
cf
stat
tit
excluding
expenditures
activities
supporters
keep
careful
track
miles
driven
postage
supplied
stamps
equals
pencils
pads
used
forth
carelessness
respect
prove
costly
perhaps
generating
headline
campaign
laws
violated
works
serious
harm
candidate
sorts
problems
unlikely
affect
constitutionality
limit
reasonably
high
cf
buckley
coordinated
expenditure
volunteer
provides
material
financial
assistance
candidate
therefore
may
properly
viewed
contribution
act
contribution
limits
low
definition
contribution
broad
act
may
well
impede
campaign
ability
effectively
use
volunteers
thereby
making
difficult
individuals
associate
way
cf
federal
contribution
limits
leave
contributor
free
become
member
political
association
assist
personally
association
efforts
behalf
candidates
low
limits
issue
help
transform
differences
degree
difference
kind
likelihood
unjustified
interference
present
context
sufficiently
great
must
consider
lack
tailoring
act
definition
contribution
added
factor
counting
constitutional
validity
contribution
limits
us
fourth
unlike
contribution
limits
upheld
shrink
see
supra
act
contribution
limits
adjusted
inflation
limits
decline
real
value
year
indeed
real
dollars
act
limits
already
declined
dollars
real
value
dollars
failure
index
limits
means
limits
already
suspiciously
low
see
supra
almost
inevitably
become
low
time
means
future
legislation
necessary
stop
almost
inevitable
decline
thereby
imposes
burden
preventing
decline
upon
incumbent
legislators
may
diligently
police
need
changes
limit
levels
assure
adequate
financing
electoral
challenges
fifth
found
nowhere
record
special
justification
might
warrant
contribution
limit
low
restrictive
bring
serious
associational
expressive
problems
described
rather
basic
justifications
state
advanced
support
limits
present
buckley
record
contains
indication
example
corruption
appearance
vermont
significantly
serious
matter
elsewhere
indeed
things
equal
one
might
reasonably
believe
contribution
say
candidate
campaign
less
likely
prove
corruptive
force
far
larger
contributions
issue
campaign
finance
cases
considered
see
supra
five
sets
considerations
taken
together
lead
us
conclude
act
contribution
limits
narrowly
tailored
rather
act
burdens
first
amendment
interests
threatening
inhibit
effective
advocacy
seek
election
particularly
challengers
contribution
limits
mute
voice
political
parties
hamper
participation
campaigns
volunteer
activities
indexed
inflation
vermont
point
legitimate
statutory
objective
might
justify
special
burdens
understand
many
though
campaign
finance
regulations
impose
certain
burdens
degree
also
understand
legitimate
need
constitutional
leeway
respect
legislative
discussion
indicates
conclude
act
respect
nonetheless
goes
far
disproportionately
burdens
numerous
first
amendment
interests
consequently
view
violates
first
amendment
add
believe
possible
sever
act
contribution
limit
provisions
others
might
remain
fully
operative
see
champlin
refining
corporation
invalid
part
may
dropped
left
fully
operative
law
see
also
minnesota
mille
lacs
band
chippewa
indians
severability
essentially
inquiry
legislative
intent
stat
tit
severability
principles
apply
vermont
statutes
sever
provisions
avoid
constitutional
objection
require
us
write
words
statute
inflation
indexing
leave
gaping
loopholes
limits
party
contributions
foresee
many
different
possible
ways
legislature
might
respond
constitutional
objections
found
given
difficulties
believe
vermont
legislature
intended
us
set
aside
statute
contribution
limits
leaving
legislature
free
rewrite
provisions
light
constitutional
difficulties
identified
iv
conclude
act
expenditure
limits
violate
first
amendment
interpreted
buckley
valeo
also
conclude
specific
details
act
contribution
limits
require
us
hold
limits
violate
first
amendment
burden
first
amendment
interests
manner
disproportionate
public
purposes
enacted
advance
given
holding
need
examine
constitutionality
statute
presumption
certain
party
expenditures
coordinated
candidate
stat
tit
accordingly
judgment
appeals
reversed
cases
remanded
proceedings
ordered
neil
randall
et
petitioners
william
sorrell
et
al
vermont
republican
state
committee
et
petitioners
william
sorrell
et
al
william
sorrell
et
petitioners
neil
randall
et
al
writs
certiorari
appeals
second
circuit
june
justice
alito
concurring
part
concurring
judgment
concur
judgment
join
justice
breyer
opinion
except
parts
contrary
suggestion
sections
respondents
primary
defense
vermont
expenditure
limits
limits
consistent
buckley
valeo
per
curiam
see
brief
william
sorrell
et
al
nos
pp
hereinafter
sorrell
brief
brief
vermont
public
interest
research
group
et
al
nos
pp
hereinafter
vpirg
brief
backup
argument
afterthought
almost
respondents
make
naked
plea
us
revisit
buckley
sorrell
brief
vpirg
brief
fairly
incongruous
given
respondents
defense
vermont
contribution
limits
rests
squarely
buckley
later
decisions
built
buckley
yet
respondents
fail
explain
appropriate
reexamine
one
part
holding
buckley
point
respondents
fail
discuss
doctrine
stare
decisis
cases
elaborating
circumstances
appropriate
reconsider
prior
constitutional
decision
indeed
pages
briefing
respondents
words
stare
decisis
appear
reference
connection
contribution
limits
see
sorrell
brief
incomplete
presentation
reason
enough
refuse
respondents
invitation
reexamine
buckley
see
international
business
machines
whether
case
made
reexamining
buckley
whole
part
matters
respondents
think
unnecessary
reach
issue
neil
randall
et
petitioners
william
sorrell
et
al
vermont
republican
state
committee
et
petitioners
william
sorrell
et
al
william
sorrell
et
petitioners
neil
randall
et
al
writs
certiorari
appeals
second
circuit
june
justice
kennedy
concurring
judgment
decides
constitutionality
limitations
vermont
places
campaign
expenditures
contributions
agree
limitations
violate
first
amendment
plurality
notes
cases
hold
expenditure
limitations
place
substantial
direct
restrictions
ability
candidates
citizens
associations
engage
protected
political
expression
restrictions
first
amendment
tolerate
buckley
valeo
per
curiam
see
also
colorado
republican
federal
campaign
comm
federal
election
principal
opinion
federal
election
national
conservative
political
action
parties
neither
ask
overrule
buckley
full
challenge
level
scrutiny
decision
applies
campaign
contributions
exacting
scrutiny
plurality
applies
expenditure
limitations
however
appropriate
reasons
explained
plurality
opinion
respondents
attempts
distinguish
present
limitations
invalidated
unavailing
upheld
contribution
limits
come
even
close
passing
serious
scrutiny
nixon
shrink
missouri
government
pac
kennedy
dissenting
concerns
aside
vermont
contributions
plurality
detailed
analysis
indicates
even
stifling
ones
survived
shrink
unduly
lenient
review
universe
campaign
finance
regulation
one
part
created
part
permitted
course
decisions
new
order
may
cause
problems
solves
routine
operational
level
present
system
requires
us
explain
restrictive
limit
experience
gives
us
little
basis
make
judgments
certainly
traditional
body
law
exists
offer
guidance
broader
systemic
level
political
parties
denied
basic
first
amendment
rights
see
mcconnell
federal
election
kennedy
concurring
judgment
part
dissenting
part
entering
fill
void
new
entities
political
action
committees
much
creatures
law
traditional
forces
speech
association
entities
manipulate
system
attract
elite
power
brokers
operate
ways
obscure
ordinary
citizen
viewed
within
legal
universe
ratified
helped
create
result
plurality
reaches
correct
given
skepticism
regarding
system
operation
however
seems
appropriate
concur
judgment
neil
randall
et
petitioners
william
sorrell
et
al
vermont
republican
state
committee
et
petitioners
william
sorrell
et
al
william
sorrell
et
petitioners
neil
randall
et
al
writs
certiorari
appeals
second
circuit
june
justice
thomas
justice
scalia
joins
concurring
judgment
although
agree
plurality
stat
tit
et
seq
act
unconstitutional
disagree
rationale
striking
statute
invoking
stare
decisis
plurality
rejects
invitation
overrule
buckley
valeo
per
curiam
applies
buckley
invalidate
expenditure
limitations
less
persuasively
contribution
limitations
continue
believe
buckley
provides
insufficient
protection
political
speech
core
first
amendment
illegitimacy
buckley
underscored
continuing
inability
plurality
apply
buckley
coherent
principled
fashion
result
stare
decisis
pose
bar
overruling
buckley
replacing
standard
faithful
first
amendment
accordingly
concur
judgment
adhere
view
erred
buckley
distinguished
contribution
expenditure
limits
finding
former
less
severe
infringement
first
amendment
rights
see
nixon
shrink
missouri
government
pac
dissenting
opinion
shrink
federal
election
colorado
republican
federal
campaign
colorado
ii
dissenting
opinion
colorado
republican
federal
campaign
comm
federal
election
colorado
opinion
concurring
judgment
dissenting
part
nlike
buckley
believe
contribution
limits
infringe
directly
seriously
upon
freedom
political
expression
association
expenditure
limits
buckley
distinguished
contributions
expenditures
based
presence
intermediary
contributor
speech
eventually
produced
reliance
misguided
given
ven
case
direct
expenditure
usually
facilitates
dissemination
spender
message
colorado
supra
shrink
supra
thomas
dissenting
likewise
buckley
suggestion
contribution
caps
marginally
restrict
speech
contribution
serves
general
expression
support
candidate
views
communicate
underlying
basis
support
even
descriptively
accurate
support
restrictions
contributions
statements
general
support
deserving
constitutional
protection
communicate
specific
reasons
support
colorado
supra
opinion
thomas
shrink
supra
thomas
dissenting
accordingly
overrule
buckley
subject
contribution
expenditure
restrictions
act
strict
scrutiny
fail
see
colorado
supra
opinion
thomas
convinced
traditional
strict
scrutiny
broad
prophylactic
caps
spending
giving
political
process
unconstitutional
see
also
colorado
ii
supra
thomas
dissenting
ii
plurality
opinion
far
making
case
buckley
rule
law
demonstrates
buckley
limited
scrutiny
contribution
limits
insusceptible
principled
application
accordingly
entitled
stare
decisis
effect
see
bmw
north
america
gore
scalia
dissenting
indeed
governing
decisions
unworkable
badly
reasoned
never
felt
constrained
follow
precedent
vieth
jubelirer
plurality
opinion
quoting
payne
tennessee
internal
quotation
marks
omitted
today
newly
minted
multifactor
test
particularly
read
combination
decision
shrink
supra
places
position
addressing
propriety
regulations
political
speech
based
upon
little
impression
appropriate
limits
plurality
sets
forth
appears
process
evaluating
validity
contribution
limits
first
determine
whether
danger
signs
particular
case
limits
low
second
use
independent
judicial
judgment
review
record
independently
carefully
eye
towards
assessing
statute
towards
assessing
proportionality
restrictions
ante
neither
step
test
reduced
workable
inquiry
performed
attempting
comply
jurisprudence
first
step
entirely
unclear
determine
whether
limits
low
constitute
danger
signs
require
examine
record
independently
carefully
ante
plurality
points
several
aspects
act
support
conclusion
signs
present
limits
set
per
election
cycle
rather
divided
primary
general
elections
limits
apply
contributions
political
parties
limits
lowest
nation
limits
previously
upheld
ante
first
two
elements
act
indeed
constitutionally
problematic
bearing
whether
contribution
limits
low
first
substantially
advantages
candidates
general
election
face
serious
primary
challenge
practice
restriction
generally
suppress
speech
challengers
incumbents
without
serving
interests
recognized
compelling
prevention
corruption
appearance
thereof
cf
smith
unfree
speech
folly
campaign
finance
reform
hereinafter
smith
describing
ability
incumbents
amass
money
early
discouraging
serious
challengers
entering
race
second
element
relation
compelling
interests
either
given
aim
political
party
influence
candidate
stance
issues
candidate
takes
office
reelected
votes
colorado
ii
thomas
dissenting
citing
colorado
thomas
concurring
judgment
dissenting
part
provisions
unconstitutional
however
make
contribution
limits
individuals
unconstitutionally
low
left
two
reasons
scrutinize
act
limitations
lower
lower
upheld
previous
cases
buckley
shrink
relative
limits
key
factor
considerations
nothing
moving
target
vermont
legislature
simply
persuaded
several
lower
contribution
limits
parallel
act
act
still
significantly
restrict
amount
funding
available
challengers
run
competitive
campaigns
ante
survive
aspect
majority
proposed
test
relationship
limits
buckley
shrink
critical
fact
shrink
specifically
determined
buckley
set
minimum
constitutional
threshold
contribution
limits
rejecting
contention
fundamental
misunderstanding
held
plurality
current
treatment
limits
shrink
constitutional
minimum
least
limits
danger
signs
present
thus
reconciled
shrink
nevertheless
concluded
danger
signs
require
us
scrutinize
record
plurality
embarks
odd
review
contribution
limits
combining
unrelated
factors
determine
taken
together
ante
restrictions
act
closely
drawn
meet
objectives
two
factors
simply
cause
already
stringent
limitations
individual
contributions
stringent
volunteer
services
count
toward
contribution
limit
ante
limits
change
inflation
become
even
stringent
time
ante
characteristics
confirm
plurality
impression
limits
indeed
quite
low
nothing
whatsoever
whether
restrictions
closely
drawn
meet
objectives
plurality
presumably
uphold
limit
contributions
million
even
volunteer
services
counted
toward
limit
limit
change
inflation
characterizing
facts
shifting
act
limits
suspiciously
low
low
provides
insight
draw
constitutional
line
plurality
next
departs
general
applicability
contribution
limits
entirely
notes
substantial
interference
contribution
limits
activities
parties
dispute
limitation
party
contributions
unconstitutional
previously
noted
limitations
unconstitutional
even
buckley
see
colorado
ii
supra
entirely
unclear
mere
fact
suspiciously
low
contribution
limits
also
apply
parties
mean
limits
fact
low
applied
individuals
limits
impermissibly
intrude
upon
associational
rights
parties
limits
unconstitutional
applied
parties
limits
individuals
transformed
permissible
low
simply
also
apply
political
left
two
arguably
relevant
points
transform
contribution
limits
realm
suspicious
realm
impermissible
first
limits
affect
substantial
portion
money
given
challengers
contribution
limits
always
disproportionately
burden
challengers
often
smaller
bases
support
incumbents
see
smith
shrink
expressly
rejected
argument
negative
impact
challenger
render
contribution
limit
invalid
relying
sort
analysis
average
effect
contribution
limits
fundraising
ante
plurality
today
rejects
see
noting
contributors
state
auditor
made
contributions
less
ven
assume
contribution
limits
affected
respondent
ability
wage
competitive
campaign
showing
one
affected
individual
point
system
suppressed
political
advocacy
unconstitutional
buckley
cf
thomas
dissenting
buckley
provided
basis
suppressing
speech
individual
candidate
simply
candidates
candidates
aggregate
may
succeed
reaching
voting
public
reasoning
fly
face
premise
political
system
liberty
vested
individual
hands
safeguards
functioning
democracy
individual
first
amendment
right
infringed
whether
speech
decreased
whether
suffers
alone
shares
violation
fellow
citizens
certainly
first
amendment
authorize
us
judge
whether
restriction
political
speech
imposes
sufficiently
severe
disadvantage
challengers
candidate
able
complain
see
shrink
supra
thomas
dissenting
ourts
yardstick
judge
proper
amount
effectiveness
campaign
speech
plurality
final
justification
fares
better
arguing
vermont
offers
justification
imposing
limit
lower
imposed
state
simply
another
way
saying
benchmark
whether
contribution
limitation
constitutional
imposed
noted
supra
tying
individuals
first
amendment
rights
presence
absence
similar
laws
inconsistent
first
amendment
plurality
recognizes
burdens
lead
invalidate
act
contribution
limits
present
many
though
campaign
finance
regulations
ante
result
plurality
purport
offer
single
touchstone
evaluating
constitutionality
laws
indeed
discussion
offers
nothing
resembling
rule
appearances
plurality
simply
looked
limits
said
independent
judicial
judgment
ante
low
atmospherics
whether
vary
inflation
whether
high
shrink
buckley
whether
apply
volunteer
activities
parties
doubt
help
contribute
plurality
sentiment
feeling
amount
workable
rule
law
say
plurality
errs
concluding
limits
low
satisfy
even
buckley
lenient
standard
indeed
almost
impossible
imagine
legislator
ever
find
scruples
overcome
donation
see
shrink
supra
thomas
dissenting
fathom
contribution
pose
substantial
risk
ing
political
quid
pro
quoting
buckley
statistics
relied
plurality
indeed
reveal
substantial
resources
lost
candidates
running
campaigns
limits
see
ante
given
contribution
limits
severely
impinge
ability
candidates
run
campaigns
ability
citizens
contribute
campaigns
without
demonstrable
need
avoid
corruption
possibly
satisfy
even
buckley
ambiguous
level
scrutiny
plurality
determination
statute
clearly
lies
impermissible
side
constitutional
line
gives
assistance
drawing
line
clear
line
drawn
rationally
simply
way
calculate
much
money
person
need
receive
corrupt
perceived
corrupt
calculation
undoubtedly
vary
person
likewise
meaningful
way
discerning
many
resources
must
lost
speech
disproportionately
burden
ed
ante
buckley
plurality
applied
gives
us
license
simply
strike
limits
seem
stringent
uphold
rest
first
amendment
grant
us
authority
buckley
provides
consistent
protection
core
first
amendment
must
overruled
reasons
concur
judgment
neil
randall
et
petitioners
william
sorrell
et
al
vermont
republican
state
committee
et
petitioners
william
sorrell
et
al
william
sorrell
et
petitioners
neil
randall
et
al
writs
certiorari
appeals
second
circuit
june
justice
stevens
dissenting
justice
breyer
justice
souter
debate
whether
per
curiam
decision
buckley
valeo
forecloses
constitutional
limitations
candidate
expenditures
plainly
issue
reasonable
minds
disagree
buckley
never
explicitly
addressed
whether
pernicious
effects
endless
fundraising
serve
compelling
state
interest
justifies
expenditure
limits
post
souter
dissenting
yet
silence
light
record
suggests
implicitly
treated
proposed
interest
insufficient
ante
plurality
opinion
breyer
assuming
true
however
convinced
buckley
holding
expenditure
limits
wrong
time
come
overrule
reached
conclusion
lightly
justice
breyer
correctly
observes
stare
decisis
principle
importance
ante
inexorable
command
several
factors
taken
together
provide
special
justification
revisiting
constitutionality
statutory
limits
candidate
expenditures
begin
buckley
holding
expenditure
limits
upset
practice
preceding
years
congressional
races
subject
statutory
limits
expenditures
contributions
see
stat
federal
corrupt
practices
act
stat
federal
election
campaign
finance
act
stat
federal
election
campaign
act
amendments
stat
automobile
workers
mcconnell
federal
election
appeals
recognized
buckley
valeo
cadc
en
banc
per
curiam
earlier
jurisprudence
provided
solid
support
treating
limits
permissible
regulations
conduct
rather
speech
ibid
discussing
burroughs
harriss
see
also
buckley
holding
contribution
limits
consistent
backdrop
holding
expenditure
limits
involve
collision
prior
doctrine
embracing
scope
intrinsically
sounder
verified
experience
helvering
hallock
reasons
reexamining
buckley
holding
candidate
expenditure
limits
apply
holding
candidate
contribution
limits
although
subsequently
reiterated
line
buckley
drew
two
types
limits
done
primarily
cases
affirming
validity
contribution
limits
functional
equivalents
see
mcconnell
nixon
shrink
missouri
government
pac
cf
california
medical
assn
federal
election
plurality
opinion
contrast
first
cases
raise
constitutionality
expenditure
limits
amounts
candidates
office
may
spend
accordingly
explicitly
recognized
importance
stare
decisis
context
buckley
holding
contribution
limits
mcconnell
see
also
vieth
jubelirer
plurality
opinion
noting
lessened
stare
decisis
concern
hard
imagine
action
taken
reliance
upon
prior
case
conceivably
frustrated
perhaps
partial
recognition
points
justice
white
refused
abandon
opposition
buckley
holding
expenditure
limits
see
federal
election
massachusetts
citizens
life
federal
election
national
conservative
political
action
dissenting
opinion
believed
buckley
deeply
wrong
issue
confused
identification
speech
antecedents
national
conservative
political
action
course
steadfast
campaign
converted
least
one
buckley
participant
position
see
national
conservative
political
action
marshall
dissenting
reasoning
since
persuaded
nonparticipating
member
buckley
well
justice
white
recognized
quite
wrong
equate
money
speech
buckley
opinion
concurring
part
dissenting
part
contrary
burden
actual
speech
imposed
limitations
spending
money
minimal
indirect
rights
direct
political
expression
advocacy
retained
even
campaign
laws
originally
enacted
everyone
free
spend
much
chose
amplify
views
general
political
issues
specific
candidates
restrictions
extent
affect
speech
indicate
hostility
speech
effects
national
conservative
political
action
white
dissenting
accordingly
limits
expenditures
far
akin
time
place
manner
restrictions
restrictions
content
speech
like
justice
white
uphold
long
purposes
serve
legitimate
sufficiently
substantial
buckley
buckley
conclusion
contrary
relied
following
metaphor
free
engage
unlimited
political
expression
subject
ceiling
expenditures
like
free
drive
automobile
far
often
one
desires
single
tank
gasoline
course
car
run
without
fuel
candidate
speak
without
spending
money
car
travel
many
miles
per
gallon
limit
number
speeches
interviews
candidate
may
give
limited
budget
moreover
provided
budget
certain
threshold
candidate
exercise
due
care
ensure
message
reaches
voters
driver
need
use
hummer
reach
destination
candidate
need
flood
airways
ceaseless
trivial
information
order
provide
voters
reasons
support
indeed
examples
effective
speech
political
arena
depend
significant
expenditure
campaigner
legion
content
william
jennings
bryan
comments
cross
gold
william
mckinley
responses
delivered
front
porch
canton
ohio
rather
expenditure
money
appealed
audiences
neither
abraham
lincoln
john
kennedy
paid
opportunity
engage
debates
stephen
douglas
richard
nixon
may
well
determined
outcomes
presidential
elections
seasoned
campaigners
members
congress
endorsed
expenditure
limits
federal
election
campaign
act
amendments
concluded
modest
budget
preclude
effectively
communicating
electorate
necessarily
rejected
buckley
metaphor
campaigners
also
identified
significant
government
interests
favoring
imposition
expenditure
limits
limits
serve
important
complement
contribution
limits
see
opinion
white
also
protect
equal
access
political
arena
free
candidates
staffs
interminable
burden
fundraising
colorado
republican
federal
campaign
comm
federal
election
stevens
dissenting
last
two
interests
particularly
acute
campaign
costs
high
rich
reach
throw
hats
ring
fail
protect
political
process
undue
influence
large
aggregations
capital
promote
individual
responsibility
democratic
government
automobile
workers
recognized
buckley
perceived
ban
expenditure
limits
severely
limits
options
dealing
interest
freeing
candidates
fundraising
straitjacket
even
compelling
without
expenditure
limits
fundraising
devours
time
attention
political
leaders
leaving
busy
handle
public
responsibilities
effectively
fact
well
recognized
backers
legislation
reviewed
buckley
appeals
judges
voted
uphold
expenditure
limitations
statute
justice
white
incidentally
personal
experience
active
participant
presidential
campaign
cf
citations
legislative
history
contained
therein
opinion
white
validity
judgment
surely
confirmed
mountains
evidence
accumulated
recent
years
concerning
time
elected
officials
spend
raising
money
future
campaigns
adverse
effect
fundraising
performance
official
additionally
convincing
evidence
important
interests
favoring
expenditure
limits
fronts
incumbency
protection
buckley
cursory
suggestion
contrary
failed
take
account
mixed
evidence
issue
see
detailing
material
available
looks
ways
permit
ting
nationwide
experiment
critically
needed
reforms
urge
us
enable
research
expenditure
limits
relate
incumbent
reelection
rates
see
brief
state
connecticut
et
al
amici
curiae
meantime
legislative
judgment
enough
enough
command
greatest
possible
deference
judges
interpreting
constitutional
provision
best
indirect
relationship
activity
affects
quantity
rather
quality
content
repetitive
speech
marketplace
ideas
one
final
point
bears
mention
neither
opinions
buckley
form
today
cacophony
pay
heed
framers
viewed
candidate
expenditure
limits
unprincipled
approach
historical
context
usually
relevant
necessarily
dispositive
georgia
randolph
slip
stevens
concurring
particularly
true
contexts
different
time
framing
accepted
posture
leading
candidates
one
modesty
acknowledging
willingness
serve
rather
desire
compete
speculation
framers
legislated
foreseen
era
televised
thus
provide
us
definitive
answers
nevertheless
firmly
persuaded
framers
appalled
impact
modern
fundraising
practices
ability
elected
officials
perform
public
responsibilities
think
viewed
federal
statutes
limiting
amount
money
congressional
candidates
might
spend
future
elections
well
within
congress
surely
expected
judges
interfere
enforcement
expenditure
limits
merely
require
candidates
budget
activities
without
imposing
restrictions
whatsoever
may
say
speeches
debates
interviews
foregoing
reasons
agree
justice
souter
entirely
appropriate
allow
proceedings
expenditure
limits
go
forward
cases
reasons
given
parts
ii
iii
dissent
also
agree
vermont
contribution
limits
presumption
coordinated
expenditures
political
parties
constitutional
join
portions
opinion
neil
randall
et
petitioners
william
sorrell
et
al
vermont
republican
state
committee
et
petitioners
william
sorrell
et
al
william
sorrell
et
petitioners
neil
randall
et
al
writs
certiorari
appeals
second
circuit
june
justice
souter
justice
ginsburg
joins
justice
stevens
joins
parts
ii
iii
dissenting
legislature
vermont
passed
act
series
public
hearings
persuaded
legislators
rehabilitating
state
political
process
required
campaign
finance
reform
majority
today
decides
expenditure
contribution
limits
enacted
irreconcilable
constitution
guarantee
free
speech
adhere
appeals
decision
remand
enquiry
bearing
limitations
candidates
expenditures
think
contribution
limits
satisfy
controlling
precedent
respectfully
dissent
rejecting
act
expenditure
limits
directly
contravening
buckley
valeo
per
curiam
ante
opinion
breyer
least
premature
said
buckley
expenditure
limitations
impose
far
greater
restraints
freedom
speech
association
contribution
limitations
buckley
categorically
foreclose
possibility
spending
limit
might
comport
first
amendment
instead
buckley
held
constitutionality
expenditure
limitation
turns
whether
governmental
interests
advanced
support
satisfy
applicable
exacting
scrutiny
ibid
applying
standard
buckley
gave
indication
given
serious
consideration
aim
vermont
statute
pursues
alleviate
drain
candidates
officials
time
caused
endless
fundraising
necessary
aggregate
many
small
contributions
meet
opportunities
ever
expensive
campaigning
instead
dwelt
rejecting
sufficiency
interests
reducing
corruption
equalizing
financial
resources
candidates
capping
overall
cost
political
campaigns
see
although
justice
white
went
step
dissenting
expenditures
made
something
interest
getting
officials
treadmill
driven
obsession
fundraising
see
opinion
concurring
part
dissenting
part
lurking
issue
treated
significant
expenditure
question
per
curiam
opinion
whatever
observations
made
buckley
effect
fundraising
candidates
time
squarely
address
interest
support
expenditure
limits
much
less
one
buttressed
thorough
record
vermont
argument
therefore
ask
us
overrule
buckley
asks
us
apply
buckley
framework
determine
whether
evidence
need
slow
fundraising
treadmill
suffices
support
enacted
limitations
vermont
claim
serious
three
decades
experience
since
buckley
taught
us
much
findings
made
vermont
legislature
pernicious
effect
nonstop
pursuit
money
significant
see
act
legislative
findings
intent
app
finding
candidates
statewide
offices
spending
inordinate
amounts
time
raising
campaign
funds
ibid
finding
obust
debate
issues
candidate
interaction
electorate
public
involvement
confidence
electoral
process
decreased
campaign
expenditures
increased
see
also
landell
sorrell
supp
noting
testimony
senator
shumlin
legislature
raising
funds
one
distasteful
things
public
service
internal
quotation
marks
omitted
landell
sorrell
public
officials
testified
trial
elected
officials
spend
time
donors
rather
official
duties
legislature
findings
surely
significant
enough
justify
appeals
remand
district
decide
whether
vermont
spending
limits
least
restrictive
means
accomplishing
unexceptionably
found
worthy
objectives
see
district
instructed
examine
variety
outstanding
issues
including
alternatives
considered
vermont
legislature
reasons
rejecting
see
thus
constitutionality
expenditure
limits
conclusively
decided
second
circuit
believe
evidentiary
work
remained
done
raised
prospect
sound
answer
question
whatever
answer
might
instead
left
unresolved
question
narrow
tailoring
consequent
doubt
justifiability
spending
limits
necessary
appropriate
correctives
record
foreclose
ability
state
remedy
impact
money
chase
democratic
process
therefore
disturb
appeals
stated
intention
remand
ii
although
defer
judgment
merits
expenditure
limitations
believe
appeals
correctly
rejected
challenge
contribution
limits
low
though
one
say
contribution
limitation
radical
effect
render
political
association
ineffective
drive
sound
candidate
voice
level
notice
render
contributions
pointless
nixon
shrink
missouri
government
pac
limits
set
vermont
remarkable
departures
either
previously
upheld
lately
adopted
plurality
concedes
measurement
vermont
limit
statewide
elections
slightly
generous
ante
one
set
missouri
statute
approved
shrink
supra
dollar
amounts
get
generous
smaller
district
consistent
limits
set
legislatures
many
populations
larger
vermont
significantly
see
montana
right
life
assn
eddleman
approving
limit
candidates
filed
jointly
governor
lieutenant
governor
since
increased
see
mont
code
ann
daggett
commission
governmental
ethics
election
practices
limit
gubernatorial
candidates
maine
minnesota
citizens
concerned
life
kelley
limit
contributions
legislative
candidates
election
years
years
florida
right
life
mortham
wl
md
mar
limit
contributions
state
candidate
point
bound
judicial
sanctions
numbers
consistency
legislative
judgment
tells
us
vermont
eccentric
party
one
case
judicial
deference
precedents
say
owe
see
shrink
supra
breyer
concurring
legislature
significantly
greater
institutional
expertise
example
field
election
regulation
practice
defers
empirical
legislative
judgments
see
also
ante
plurality
opinion
rdinarily
deferred
legislature
determination
matters
related
costs
nature
running
office
place
vermont
contribution
limits
beyond
constitutional
pale
therefore
forget
facts
shrink
also
legislative
judgments
risk
corruption
contribution
limits
fitted
see
shrink
supra
deference
surely
overly
complaisant
vermont
legislators
testified
length
money
gets
special
attention
see
act
legislative
findings
intent
app
finding
ome
candidates
elected
officials
particularly
time
limited
respond
give
access
contributors
make
large
contributions
preference
make
small
contributions
testimony
elizabeth
ready
got
hour
night
get
home
return
calls
much
likely
return
donor
call
hen
minutes
talk
certain
people
get
access
alterations
original
record
revealed
amount
money
public
sees
suspiciously
large
see
supp
limits
set
legislature
accurately
reflect
level
contribution
considered
suspiciously
large
vermont
public
testimony
suggested
amounts
greater
contribution
limits
considered
large
vermont
public
testimony
identified
amounts
high
enough
pay
effective
campaigning
state
cost
running
tends
low
side
see
context
vermont
politics
donations
clearly
large
legislature
determined
small
donations
considered
strong
acts
political
support
state
william
meub
testified
contribution
meaningful
represents
commitment
contributor
likely
become
vote
candidate
gubernatorial
candidate
ruth
dwyer
values
small
contributions
much
personally
sends
thank
notes
donors
vermont
many
politicians
run
effective
winning
campaigns
little
money
money
several
candidates
campaign
managers
past
present
government
officials
testified
able
raise
enough
money
mount
effective
campaigns
system
contribution
limits
established
act
spending
vermont
statewide
elections
low
vermont
ranks
campaign
spending
majority
major
party
candidates
statewide
office
last
three
election
cycles
spent
less
spending
limits
act
allow
vermont
legislative
races
methods
campaigning
standard
even
expected
voters
still
cases
say
deference
absolute
imagine
dollar
limits
laughable
per
capita
comparisons
meaningless
aggregated
donations
simply
sustain
effective
campaigns
plurality
thinks
point
reached
vermont
particular
low
contribution
limits
threaten
ability
challengers
run
effective
races
incumbents
thus
plurality
limit
deference
substantially
function
suspicion
political
incumbents
legislature
set
low
contribution
limits
public
recognition
easy
access
free
publicity
effectively
augment
spending
power
beyond
anything
challenger
muster
suspicion
words
incumbents
trusted
set
fair
limits
facially
neutral
limits
fact
give
challengers
even
break
received
suspicion
proper
subject
suspicion
petitioners
offered
plurality
invokes
evidence
risk
advantage
realized
fact
record
evidence
runs
way
plurality
concedes
see
ante
record
contain
anecdotal
evidence
supporting
respondents
position
namely
testimony
competitive
mayoral
campaign
burlington
suggests
challenger
resources
necessary
effective
advocacy
buckley
discount
evidence
low
limits
fair
challengers
experience
burlington
race
confirmed
recent
empirical
studies
addressing
issue
incumbent
advantage
see
eom
gross
contribution
limits
disparity
contributions
gubernatorial
candidates
pol
research
analyses
number
contributors
dollar
amount
contributions
gubernatorial
candidates
suggest
support
increased
bias
favor
incumbents
resulting
presence
campaign
contribution
limits
anything
contribution
limits
work
reduce
bias
traditionally
works
favor
incumbents
also
contribution
limits
seem
increase
disparities
gubernatorial
candidates
general
emphasis
deleted
bardwell
money
challenger
emergence
gubernatorial
primaries
pol
research
finding
contribution
limits
favor
neither
incumbents
challengers
hogan
costs
representation
state
legislatures
explaining
variations
campaign
spending
soc
sci
finding
contribution
limits
reduce
incumbent
spending
effect
challenger
candidate
spending
legislature
vermont
evidently
tried
account
realities
campaigning
vermont
see
evidence
constitutional
miscalculation
sufficient
dispense
respect
judgments
iii
four
issues
detail
call
attention
first
requirement
volunteer
expenses
count
person
contribution
limit
plurality
certainly
makes
case
accounting
expenses
colossal
nuisance
case
nuisance
noticeably
limit
volunteering
volunteers
whose
expenses
reach
limit
continue
efforts
subject
charging
candidates
excess
granted
provisions
contribution
limits
teetering
edge
unconstitutionality
act
treatment
volunteers
expenses
might
gives
fatal
push
greater
significance
second
failure
vermont
law
index
limits
inflation
even
less
important
challenge
law
law
may
different
impact
future
inflation
state
legislature
fails
bring
economic
date
third
subjecting
political
parties
contribution
limits
individuals
condemn
vermont
scheme
said
federal
election
colorado
republican
federal
campaign
dealing
regulation
coordinated
expenditures
goes
capacity
desire
parties
make
large
contributions
competitive
candidates
uphill
fights
shared
rich
individuals
risk
large
party
contributions
channels
evade
individual
limits
eliminated
reasons
support
party
limits
undercut
claims
restrictions
render
parties
impotent
parties
precluded
uncoordinated
spending
benefit
candidates
said
acknowledge
suggestions
petitioners
briefs
restrictions
synergy
influences
weakening
party
power
justify
wholesale
reexamination
situation
party
organization
today
whether
comprehensive
reexamination
belongs
courts
legislatures
issue
presented
cases
finally
issue
act
presumption
coordinated
expenditures
part
political
parties
stat
tit
plurality
occasion
reach
reach
find
insignificant
republican
party
petitioners
complain
related
expenditure
provision
imposes
candidate
party
burden
circumstances
prove
coordination
expenditure
take
place
thus
threatening
charge
candidate
spending
limits
party
expenditures
fact
independent
ultimate
consequence
chilling
speech
see
brief
vermont
republican
state
committee
et
al
contrary
however
safely
take
presumption
representation
attorney
general
vermont
law
imposes
burden
persuasion
merely
one
production
leaving
presumption
easily
rebuttable
see
tr
oral
arg
representation
presumption
disappears
credible
evidence
affidavit
offered
see
also
brief
william
sorrell
et
al
presumption
contributes
evidence
disappears
facts
appear
case
covered
presumption
political
party
need
present
evidence
presumed
fact
true
presumption
vanishes
simple
testimony
expenditure
coordinated
suffice
defeat
presumption
citations
internal
quotation
marks
alterations
omitted
understood
rebuttable
presumption
clearly
imposes
onerous
burden
like
conclusive
presumption
colorado
republican
federal
campaign
comm
federal
election
principal
opinion
nearly
conclusive
one
riley
national
federation
blind
requiring
party
possession
pertinent
facts
come
forward
easily
executing
affidavit
rise
level
constitutionally
offensive
encumbrance
cf
county
ulster
cty
allen
extent
presumption
imposes
extremely
low
burden
production
satisfied
evidence
may
well
impact
greater
permissive
inference
iv
pass
upon
constitutionality
vermont
expenditure
limits
prior
enquiry
fit
problem
fundraising
demands
candidates
see
contribution
limits
depressed
level
political
inaudibility
respectfully
dissent
footnotes
together
vermont
republican
state
committee
et
al
sorrell
et
sorrell
et
al
randall
et
also
certiorari
footnotes
although
plurality
stare
decisis
analysis
limited
buckley
treatment
expenditure
limitations
reasoning
confined
apply
equally
buckley
standard
evaluating
contribution
limits
see
ante
noting
inter
alia
buckley
engendered
considerable
reliance
dramatically
undermine
overruling
ironically
plurality
troubled
fact
absence
provision
adjusting
limits
inflation
means
real
value
limits
decline
burden
preventing
decline
lies
upon
incumbent
legislators
may
diligently
police
need
changes
limit
levels
assure
adequate
financing
electoral
challenges
ante
impossible
square
wariness
incumbents
disinclination
enact
future
laws
protecting
challengers
plurality
deference
incumbents
make
empirical
judgments
regarding
precise
restriction
necessary
carry
statute
legitimate
objectives
first
place
ante
plurality
connection
two
factors
implies
concerned
impact
speech
contributors
solely
speech
candidates
two
facts
might
connected
see
ante
indeed
plurality
notably
omits
interference
participation
campaigns
monetary
contributions
list
reasons
act
unconstitutional
see
contributors
right
free
speech
see
colorado
thomas
concurring
judgment
dissenting
part
individual
limited
amount
resources
contribute
pool
certainly
limited
ability
associate
purposes
effective
advocacy
even
buckley
valeo
per
curiam
recognizes
contribution
limits
restrict
free
speech
contributors
even
understates
significance
restriction
see
limitation
upon
amount
one
person
group
may
contribute
candidate
entails
marginal
restriction
upon
contributor
ability
engage
free
communication
footnotes
course
invalidated
limits
independent
expenditures
third
persons
federal
election
national
conservative
political
action
colorado
republican
federal
campaign
comm
federal
election
cf
federal
election
massachusetts
citizens
life
cases
principal
parties
accepted
buckley
holding
candidate
expenditure
limits
gave
us
cause
consider
much
weight
give
stare
decisis
see
brief
state
connecticut
et
al
amici
curiae
citing
rev
stat
rev
stat
neb
rev
stat
laws
see
alexander
let
jobs
compelling
government
interest
protecting
time
candidates
elected
officials
loyola
chi
see
also
post
souter
dissenting
indeed
example
city
albuquerque
suggests
concerns
incumbent
entrenchment
unfounded
city
set
expenditure
limits
municipal
elections
interlude
aside
limits
applied
successfully
challenged
municipal
candidates
homans
albuquerque
supp
nm
aff
cert
denied
findings
fact
federal
district
determined
ationwide
percent
incumbent
mayors
successfully
sought
reelection
contrast
since
city
zero
percent
success
rate
mayors
seeking
reelection
supp
citation
omitted
concluded
system
unlimited
spending
deleterious
effects
competitiveness
elections
gives
incumbent
candidates
electoral
advantage
ibid
far
conclusive
example
cuts
view
correlation
expenditure
limits
incumbent
advantage
see
also
brief
center
democracy
election
management
american
university
amicus
curiae
concluding
canada
kingdom
new
zealand
malta
campaign
expenditure
limits
electoral
competition
jamaica
ireland
australia
lack
limits
see
art
providing
times
places
manner
ing
elections
senators
representatives
shall
prescribed
state
legislature
thereof
congress
may
time
law
make
alter
regulations
see
also
providing
house
may
determine
rules
proceedings
footnotes
approving
public
funding
provisions
subject
campaign
finance
law
subtitle
internal
revenue
code
buckley
appreciated
enacting
provision
congress
legislating
part
free
candidates
rigors
fundraising
see
also
buckley
supra
imply
conclusive
rejection
separate
issue
expenditure
limits