Buckley v. Valeo, Nos. 75-436 and 75-437

CourtUnited States Supreme Court
Citation96 S.Ct. 612,46 L.Ed.2d 659,424 U.S. 1
Docket NumberNos. 75-436 and 75-437
Parties James L. BUCKLEY et al., Appellants, v. Francis R. VALEO, Secretary of the United States Senate, et al. (two cases)
Decision Date30 January 1976
Syllabus

The Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 (Act), as amended in 1974, (a) limits political contributions to candidates for federal elective office by an individual or a group to $1,000 and by a political committee to $5,000 to any single candidate per election, with an overall annual limitation of $25,000 by an individual contributor; (b) limits expenditures by individuals or groups "relative to a clearly identified candidate" to $1,000 per candidate per election, and by a candidate from his personal or family funds to various specified annual amounts depending upon the federal office sought, and restricts overall general election and primary campaign expenditures by candidates to various specified amounts, again depending upon the federal office sought; (c) requires political committees to keep detailed records of contributions and expenditures, including the name and address of each individual contributing in excess of $10, and his occupation and principal place of business if his contribution exceeds $100, and to file quarterly reports with the Federal Election Commission disclosing the source of every contribution exceeding $100 and the recipient and purpose of every expenditure over $100, and also requires every individual or group, other than a candidate or political committee, making contributions or expenditures exceeding $100 "other than by contribution to a political committee or candidate" to file a statement with the Commission; and (d) creates the eight-member Commission as the administering agency with recordkeeping, disclosure, and investigatory functions and extensive rulemaking, adjudicatory, and enforcement powers, and consisting of two members appointed by the President pro tempore of the Senate, two by the Speaker of the House, and two by the President (all subject to confirmation by both Houses of Congress), and the Secretary of the Senate and the Clerk of the House as ex officio nonvoting members. Subtitle H of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954 (IRC), as amended in 1974, provides for public financing of Presidential nominating conventions and general election and primary campaigns from general revenues and allocates such funding to conventions and general election campaigns by establishing three categories: (1) "major" parties (those whose candidate received 25% Or more of the vote in the most recent election), which receive full funding; (2) "minor" parties (those whose candidate received at least 5% But less than 25% Of the votes at the last election), which receive only a percentage of the funds to which the major parties are entitled; and (3) "new" parties (all other parties), which are limited to receipt of post-election funds or are not entitled to any funds if their candidate receives less than 5% Of the vote. A primary candidate for the Presidential nomination by a political party who receives more than $5,000 from private sources (counting only the first $250 of each contribution) in each of at least 20 States is eligible for matching public funds. Appellants (various federal officeholders and candidates, supporting political organizations, and others) brought suit against appellees (the Secretary of the Senate, Clerk of the House, Comptroller General, Attorney General, and the Commission) seeking declaratory and injunctive relief against the above statutory provisions on various constitutional grounds. The Court of Appeals, on certified questions from the District Court, upheld all but one of the statutory provisions. A three-judge District Court upheld the constitutionality of Subtitle H. Held :

1. This litigation presents an Art. III "case or controversy," since the complaint discloses that at least some of the appellants have a sufficient "personal stake" in a determination of the constitutional validity of each of the challenged provisions to present "a real and substantial controversy admitting of specific relief through a decree of a conclusive character, as distinguished from an opinion advising what the law would be upon a hypothetical state of facts." Aetna Life Ins. Co. v. Haworth, 300 U.S. 227, 241, 57 S.Ct. 461, 464, 81 L.Ed. 617. P. 11-12.

2. The Act's contribution provisions are constitutional, but the expenditure provisions violate the First Amendment. Pp. 12-59.

(a) The contribution provisions, along with those covering disclosure, are appropriate legislative weapons against the reality or appearance of improper influence stemming from the dependence of candidates on large campaign contributions, and the ceilings imposed accordingly serve the basic governmental interest in safeguarding the integrity of the electoral process without directly impinging upon the rights of individual citizens and candidates to engage in political debate and discussion. Pp. 23-38.

(b) The First Amendment requires the invalidation of the Act's independent expenditure ceiling, its limitation on a candidate's expenditures from his own personal funds, and its ceilings on overall campaign expenditures, since those provisions place substantial and direct restrictions on the ability of candidates, citizens, and associations to engage in protected political expression, restrictions that the First Amendment cannot tolerate. Pp. 39-59.

3. The Act's disclosure and recordkeeping provisions are constitutional. Pp. 60-84.

(a) The general disclosure provisions, which serve substantial governmental interests in informing the electorate and preventing the corruption of the political process, are not overbroad insofar as they apply to contributions to minor parties and independent candidates. No blanket exemption for minor parties is warranted since such parties in order to prove injury as a result of application to them of the disclosure provisions need show only a reasonable probability that the compelled disclosure of a party's contributors' names will subject them to threats, harassment, or reprisals in violation of their First Amendment associational rights. Pp. 64-74.

(b) The provision for disclosure by those who make inde- pendent contributions and expenditures, as narrowly construed to apply only (1) when they make contributions earmarked for political purposes or authorized or requested by a candidate or his agent to some person other than a candidate or political committee and (2) when they make an expenditure for a communication that expressly advocates the election or defeat of a clearly identified candidate is not unconstitutionally vague and does not constitute a prior restraint but is a reasonable and minimally restrictive method of furthering First Amendment values by public exposure of the federal election system. Pp. 74-82.

(c) The extension of the recordkeeping provisions to contributions as small as those just above $10 and the disclosure provisions to contributions above $100 is not on this record overbroad since it cannot be said to be unrelated to the informational and enforcement goals of the legislation. Pp. 82-84.

4. Subtitle H of the IRC is constitutional. Pp. 85-109.

(a) Subtitle H is not invalid under the General Welfare Clause but, as a means to reform the electoral process, was clearly a choice within the power granted to Congress by the Clause to decide which expenditures will promote the general welfare. Pp. 90-92.

(b) Nor does Subtitle H violate the First Amendment. Rather than abridging, restricting, or censoring speech, it represents an effort to use public money to facilitate and enlarge public discussion and participation in the electoral process. Pp. 92-93.

(c) Subtitle H, being less burdensome than ballot-access regulations and having been enacted in furtherance of vital governmental interests in relieving major-party candidates from the rigors of soliciting private contributions, in not funding candidates who lack significant public support, and in eliminating reliance on large private contributions for funding of conventions and campaigns, does not invidiously discriminate against minor and new parties in violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment. Pp. 93-108.

(d) Invalidation of the spending-limit provisions of the Act does not render Subtitle H unconstitutional, but the Subtitle is severable from such provisions and is not dependent upon the existence of a generally applicable expenditure limit. Pp. 108-109.

5. The Commission's composition as to all but its investigative and informative powers violates Art. II, § 2, cl. 2. With respect to the Commission's powers, all of which are ripe for review to enforce the Act, including primary responsibility for bringing civil actions against violators, to make rules for carrying out the Act, to temporarily disqualify federal candidates for failing to file required reports, and to authorize convention expenditures in excess of the specified limits, the provisions of the Act vesting such powers in the Commission and the prescribed method of appointment of members of the Commission to the extent that a majority of the voting members are appointed by the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House, violate the Appointments Clause, which provides in pertinent part that the President shall nominate, and with the Senate's advice and consent appoint, all "Officers of the United States," whose appointments are not otherwise provided for, but that Congress may vest the appointment of such inferior officers, as it deems proper, in the President alone, in the courts, or in the heads of departments. Hence (though the Commission's past acts are accorded de facto validity and a stay is granted permitting it to function under the Act for not more than 30 days), the Commission, as...

To continue reading

Request your trial
3678 cases
  • Britt v. Superior Court
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court (California)
    • March 27, 1978
    ...which the Government may not enter." (Emphasis added.) (372 U.S. at p. 570, 83 S.Ct. at p. 906. See also Buckley v. Valeo, supra, 424 U.S. 1, 64-68, 96 S.Ct. 612, 46 L.Ed.2d 659; Pollard v. Roberts (E.D.Ark.1968) 283 F.Supp. 248, 258 (3-judge court), aff'd per curiam (1968) 393 U.S. 14, 89 ......
  • Nader v. Schaffer
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Connecticut
    • July 14, 1976
    ...probability of success in the general election and whose candidates may become holders of public office. Cf. Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1, 93-96, 96 S.Ct. 612, 46 L.Ed.2d 659 (1976), and Jenness v. Fortson, 403 U.S. 431, 442, 91 S.Ct. 1970, 29 L.Ed.2d 554 (1971) (legislature can require can......
  • Keller v. State Bar
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court (California)
    • February 23, 1989
    ...Detroit Board of Education, supra, (1977) 431 U.S. 209, 235-236, 97 S.Ct. 1782, 1799-1800, 52 L.Ed.2d 261; cf. Buckley v. Valeo (1976) 424 U.S. 1, 96 S.Ct. 612, 46 L.Ed.2d 659.) No explicit authorization would be necessary; any prohibition on such activity, such as section 6031, subdivision......
  • Maglietti v. Nicholson
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Connecticut
    • September 29, 2007
    ...this error in Maglietti's complaint will not effect the analysis of her Equal Protection claim. Id. citing Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1, 93, 96 S.Ct. 612, 46 L.Ed.2d 659 (1976). 7. While the Supreme Court used the words "similarly situated" to describe the standard for a "class of one" clai......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
11 firm's commentaries
  • Jury Charge Issues Loom In Silver, Skelos Appeals
    • United States
    • Mondaq United States
    • February 9, 2016
    ...not expected to go to trial until at least October 2016. McCormick v. United States, 500 U.S. 257, 273 (1991). See also Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1, 16-19 (1976) (per curiam) (holding that campaign contributions and expenditures are speech under First Amendment requiring special protection......
  • Three Can Keep A Secret, If Two Of Them Are Dead: A Thought Experiment Around Compelled Public Disclosure Of 'Anonymous' Political Expenditures
    • United States
    • Mondaq United States
    • August 2, 2012
    ...a relatively narrow issue, we may view the transaction quite differently, and perhaps as a bribe. Id. at 623. 24 Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1, 28 (1976) (noting that bribery laws deal with "only the most blatant and specific attempts of those with money to influence governmental action."). ......
  • No Place To Hide: First Amendment Protection For Location Privacy
    • United States
    • Mondaq United States
    • March 19, 2014
    ...516 (1960)). 7 Id. at 558. 8 Id. 9 364 U.S. 479 (1960). 10 Id. at 485-486. 11 459 U.S. 87 (1982). 12 Id. at 420 (quoting Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1, 64 (1976)). 13 See, e.g., Pollard v. Roberts, 283 F. Supp. 248 (E.D. Ark. 1968), aff'd mem.,393 U.S. 14 (1968) (Bank not required to turn ov......
  • 4th Circuit Holds Livestreaming Traffic Stop May Be Protected
    • United States
    • LexBlog United States
    • February 8, 2023
    ...of governmental affairs.’” Ariz. Free Enter. Club’s Freedom Club PAC v. Bennett, 564 U.S. 721, 755 (2011) (quoting Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1, 14 (1976) (per curiam)). And other courts have routinely recognized these principles extend the First Amendment to cover recording—particularly wh......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
183 books & journal articles
  • Deciding Without an Appointment: Examining the Appointments Clause and Administrative Arbitration
    • United States
    • Georgetown Law Journal No. 111-2, December 2022
    • December 1, 2022
    ...decisions” must be made by, or under the reviewable discretion of, an Off‌icer of the United States) (interpreting Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1, 140–41 (1976) (per curiam) (holding “performance of a signif‌icant governmental duty exercised pursuant to a public law” can only be executed by a......
  • Equal Protection, Strict Scrutiny, and Actions to Promote Environmental Justice
    • United States
    • Environmental Law Reporter No. 39-3, March 2009
    • March 1, 2009
    ...“‘Equal protection analysis in the Fifth Amendment area is the same as that under the Fourteenth Amendment’” (quoting Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1, 93 (1976))). 43. Roth , 408 U.S. at 576-77 (emphasis added). 44. Seattle School, Missouri v. Jenkins, 515 U.S. 70 (1995); Regents of Univ. of C......
  • Nonlethal self-defense, (almost entirely) nonlethal weapons, and the rights to keep and bear arms and defend life.
    • United States
    • Stanford Law Review Vol. 62 No. 1, December 2009
    • December 1, 2009
    ...(112.) Ward v. Rock Against Racism, 491 U.S. 781, 796-802 (1989); Kovacs v. Cooper, 336 U.S. 77, 82-83 (1949). (113.) See Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1, 25-26 (114.) See Kasler v. Lockyer, 2 P.3d 581, 585-86 (Cal. 2000); In re Depasquale, 2007 WL 1827219, at *3 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. Jun......
  • The Strength of a Giant: The Administrative State and the United States Patent & Trademark Office
    • United States
    • The Georgetown Journal of Law & Public Policy No. 21-1, January 2023
    • January 1, 2023
    ...Who Are “ Off‌icers of the United States ” ? , 70 STAN. L. REV. 443, 454 (2018). 53. Freytag , 501 U.S. at 881 (citing Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1, 126 (1976) (“Any appointee exercising signif‌icant authority pursuant to the laws of the United States is an ‘off‌icer of the United States’ a......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
5 provisions
  • Chapter 837, SB 1107 – Political Reform Act of 1974
    • United States
    • California Session Laws
    • January 1, 2016
    ...pressures on publicoffice seekers and thereby reduces the undue influence of specialinterest groups." (j) In Buckley v. Valeo (1976) 424 U.S. 1, the United StatesSupreme Court recognized that "public financing as a means ofeliminating the improper influence of large private contributionsfur......
  • Chapter 175, SB 1272 – Campaign finance: advisory election
    • United States
    • California Session Laws
    • January 1, 2014
    ...harms to the environment, consumers,workers, independent businesses, and local and regional economies. (h) In Buckley v. Valeo (1976) 424 U.S. 1, the United StatesSupreme Court held that the appearance of corruption justified somecontribution limitations, but it wrongly rejected other funda......
  • Chapter 20, SB 254 – Campaign finance: voter instruction
    • United States
    • California Session Laws
    • January 1, 2016
    ...harms to the environment, consumers,workers, independent businesses, and local and regional economies. (h) In Buckley v. Valeo (1976) 424 U.S. 1, the United StatesSupreme Court held that the appearance of corruption justified somecontribution limitations, but it wrongly rejected other funda......
  • Act 122, HB 463 – Campaign Expenditures; Reporting Requirement; Noncandidate Committees
    • United States
    • Hawaii Session Laws
    • January 1, 2023
    ...important government interests.The legislature further finds that in the seminal case on campaign finance law, Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1 (1976), the United States Supreme Court acknowledged the sufficiently important government interest in ensuring that voters are fully informed through ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT