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

CourtUnited States Supreme Court
Writing for the CourtPER CURIAM; STEVENS; BURGER; WHITE; MARSHALL; BLACKMUN; REHNQUIST
Citation96 S.Ct. 612,46 L.Ed.2d 659,424 U.S. 1
Decision Date30 January 1976
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)
424 U.S. 1
96 S.Ct. 612
46 L.Ed.2d 659
James L. BUCKLEY et al., Appellants,

v.

Francis R. VALEO, Secretary of the United States Senate, et al. (two cases).

Nos. 75-436 and 75-437.
Argued Nov. 10, 1975.
Decided Jan. 30, 1976.
Motion Granted Feb. 27, 1976.

                            See 424 U.S. 936, 96 S.Ct. 1153.

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

Page 2

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 :

Page 3

          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-

Page 4

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,

Page 5

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...

To continue reading

Request your trial
3633 practice notes
  • Political committee status,
    • United States
    • Federal Register March 11, 2004
    • March 11, 2004
    ...which is the nomination or election of a candidate,'' and does not ``reach groups engaged purely in issue discussion.'' Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1, 79 (1976) (emphasis added). The Supreme Court has reaffirmed the applicability of the ``major purpose'' test in subsequent opinions. See FEC ......
  • Coordinated and independent expenditures; transmittal to Congress,
    • United States
    • Federal Register January 03, 2003
    • January 3, 2003
    ...or inquiry into the subjective effect of the communication on the reader, viewer, or listener as possible. See Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1, 42-44 (1976). The new paragraph (c)(4) is applied by asking if certain things are true or false about the face of the public communication or with lim......
  • Federal Election Commission,
    • United States
    • Federal Register September 24, 2002
    • September 24, 2002
    ...or inquiry into the subjective effect of the communication on the reader, viewer, or listener as possible. See Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1, 42–44 (1975). For example, it should not require inquiry into whether the communication “garners or diminishes support” for the candidate or was desig......
  • Separate Parts In This Issue Part II Federal Election Commission,
    • United States
    • Federal Register January 03, 2003
    • January 3, 2003
    ...or inquiry into the subjective effect of the communication on the reader, viewer, or listener as possible. See Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1, 42-44 (1976). The new paragraph (c)(4) is applied by asking if certain things are true or false about the face of the public communication or with lim......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
3566 cases
  • Board of Trustees of State University of New York v. Fox, No. 87-2013
    • United States
    • United States Supreme Court
    • June 29, 1989
    ...are uttered for a profit. See, e.g., New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254, 84 S.Ct. 710, 11 L.Ed.2d 686 (1964); Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1, 96 S.Ct. 612, 46 L.Ed.2d 659 (1976) (per curiam). In addition to being clear about the difference between commercial and noncommercial speech......
  • Zobel v. Williams, No. 80-1146
    • United States
    • United States Supreme Court
    • June 14, 1982
    ...unless it is evident that the legislature would not have enacted the legislation without the invalid portion. Buckley v. Page 65 Valeo, 424 U.S. 1, 108, 96 S.Ct. 612, 677, 46 L.Ed.2d 659 (1976); United States v. Jackson, 390 U.S. 570, 585, 88 S.Ct. 1209, 1218, 20 L.Ed.2d 138 (1968); Champli......
  • Federal Communications Commission v. League of Women Voters of California, No. 82-912
    • United States
    • United States Supreme Court
    • July 2, 1984
    ...First National Bank of Boston v. Bellotti, 435 U.S. 765, 776-777, 98 S.Ct. 1407, 1415-1416, 55 L.Ed.2d 707 (1978); Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1, 14, 96 S.Ct. 612, 632, 46 L.Ed.2d 659 (1976); Thornhill v. Alabama, 310 U.S. 88, 101-102, 60 S.Ct. 736, 744, 84 L.Ed. 1093 (1940). Were a similar ......
  • Hill v. Sec. & Exch. Comm'n, Civil Action No. 1:15–CV–1801–LMM.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 11th Circuit. United States District Courts. 11th Circuit. Northern District of Georgia
    • June 8, 2015
    ...whom "Congress may allow to be appointed by the President alone, by the heads of departments, or by the Judiciary." Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1, 132, 96 S.Ct. 612, 46 L.Ed.2d 659 (1976). The Appointments Clause applies to all agency officers including those whose functions are "predominate......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
30 books & journal articles
  • The Bribery Double Standard: Leveraging the Foreign-Domestic Divide.
    • United States
    • Stanford Law Review Vol. 74 Nbr. 1, January 2022
    • January 1, 2022
    ...For a detailed account of the Spiro Agnew bribery scandal and Agnew's exit from public office, see generally id. (98.) Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1, 26-27 (1976) (per curiam) (emphasis omitted), superseded in other part by statute, Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 (BCRA), Pub. L. No. ......
  • Modern Vacancies, Ancient Remedy: How the De Facto Officer Doctrine Applies to Vacancies Act Violations (And How It Should).
    • United States
    • Stanford Law Review Vol. 74 Nbr. 3, March 2022
    • March 1, 2022
    ...915 F.3d at 859-61. (75.) Id. at 862. (76.) Id. (77.) See supra Part II.A. (78.) Aurelius, 915 F.3d at 862 (citing Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1,140-42 (1976) (per curiam), superseded in other part by statute, Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 (BCRA), Pub. L. No. 107-155,116 Stat. 81 (c......
  • ELECTION LAW VIOLATIONS
    • United States
    • American Criminal Law Review Nbr. 58-3, July 2021
    • July 1, 2021
    ...communications; the D.C. Circuit upheld this latter regulation in 2016 in Van Hollen v. FEC.95 89. Id. at 696 (quoting Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1, 64 (1976) and McConnell v. FEC, 540 U.S. 93, 201 (2003)). 90. Minn. Citizens Concerned for Life, Inc. v. Swanson, 692 F.3d 864, 876 (8th Cir. ......
  • Table of authorities
    • United States
    • Introduction to environmental law: cases and materials on water pollution control - 2d Edition
    • July 23, 2017
    ...(Fed. Cir. 1997) ................................................................................................... 953 Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1 (1976) ............................................................................. 73 Bunker Hill Co. Lead & Zinc Smelter v. EPA, 658 F.2d ......
  • 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