InsideGov
Supreme Court · Decisions

Buckley et al. v. Valeo, Secretary of the United States Senate, et al.

In a challenge to campaign finance limits under the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971, the Court held that limits on election expenditures were unconstitutional because they contravened the First Amendment's protection of free speech.· AI-written

424 U.S. 1 · No. 75-436 · 1975 term · Burger Court

Decided Jan 30, 1976 · argued Nov 10, 1975

First Amendment · Campaign spending

Landmark · Freedom of speech and of the pressStruck down an act of Congress

The voteMajorityDissent

7–17 in the majority, 1 in dissent

1 dissent (8–1)

Affirmed and reversed (or vacated) in part. Buckley et al. won.

What this ruling means

Affirmed in part and reversed in part: the Supreme Court upheld part of the decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit and overturned or set aside the rest.

Buckley et al. was the petitioner, the side that asked the Supreme Court to review the case. “Won” means the Court gave that side the result it asked for.

From the Supreme Court Database. A justice who agreed with the result but not the reasoning counts in the majority.

Report a correction

Summary

The opening of the case’s Wikipedia article: what the case was about and what the Court held.

Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1 (1976), is a landmark decision of the U.S. Supreme Court on campaign finance. A majority of justices held that, as provided by section 608 of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971, limits on election expenditures are unconstitutional. In a per curiam (by the Court) opinion, they ruled that expenditure limits contravene the First Amendment provision on freedom of speech because a restriction on spending for political communication necessarily reduces the quantity of expression. It limited disclosure provisions and limited the Federal Election Commission's power. Justice Byron White dissented in part and wrote that Congress had legitimately recognized unlimited election spending as "a mortal danger against which effective preventive and curative steps must be taken".

Buckley v. Valeo was extended by the U.S. Supreme Court in further cases, including in the five to four decision of First National Bank of Boston v. Bellotti in 1978 and Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission in 2010. The latter held that corporations may spend from their general treasuries during elections. In 2014, McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission held that aggregate limits on political giving by an individual are unconstitutional. By some measures, Buckley is the longest opinion ever issued by the Supreme Court.

Read the full article on Wikipedia

Data notes

The text is Wikipedia’s (CC BY-SA 4.0), matched to the case by its citation, docket number or name and year, and is not checked against the opinion. The site keeps the article’s opening section, ending on its last full sentence. The one-sentence summary under the title is the Decisions list’s: Wikipedia’s own ruling sentence, or, tagged “AI-written”, one Claude wrote from this opening.

Report a correction

How the justices voted

Each justice who took part, placed by their Martin–Quinn ideology score for the 1975 term. Filled: the 7 in the majority. Hollow: the 1 in dissent. Colour is the party of the president who appointed them.

More liberalMore conservativeMedianBrennanMarshallStewartWhiteBlackmunPowellBurgerRehnquist

Majority(7)

Dissent(1)

Did not take part: John Stevens.

Data notes

Each justice’s vote and what they wrote are from the justice-centered file of the Supreme Court Database. “Wrote a concurrence” means the justice sided with the majority and wrote separately; a justice who dissented in part is counted on the side they took overall. A justice who wrote nothing is listed as joining their side.

Positions are each justice’s Martin–Quinn score for the case’s term, the same scores as the Ideology page: negative is more liberal, positive more conservative. A score sums up a justice’s votes across the whole term, so it says where they usually sit, not why they voted as they did here. The median line is the Court’s median justice that term.

Report a correction

The parties

Who brought the case to the Court, who answered it, and how it got there.

Petitioner
Buckley et al.U.S. senator
Respondent
Valeo, Secretary of the United States Senate, et al.Federal Election Commission
Reached the Court by
Appeal (the Court was required to hear it)
Data notes

The names are the two sides of the case’s title. The description under each is the Supreme Court Database’s category for that party, in its own wording. The petitioner is the side that asked the Supreme Court to review the decision below. “Why it was taken” appears only when the majority opinion says lower courts disagreed or were unsure about the question; reasons that would fit any case (“to resolve the question presented”, “an important question”) are left out.

Report a correction

The law at issue

The law the Court was asked to apply, and the kind of power it used to decide.

Provision
Article II, Section 2, Paragraph 2 (appointments clause)
Kind of law
Constitution
Decided by
Judicial review (national level)
Struck down
An act of Congress, as unconstitutional
Data notes

The Supreme Court Database codes the main constitutional provision, statute or court rule each case turned on, and the basis of the decision: judicial review of a federal or state law, interpreting a statute, supervising the lower courts, and so on. A case can rest on more than one. “Overruled” counts only where the majority opinion says so.

Report a correction

Timeline

What happened at the Court and how the case got there, newest first.

  1. Jan 30, 1976DecidedDecided · Decided 7–1: affirmed and reversed (or vacated) in part. Buckley et al. won.
  2. Nov 10, 1975ArguedArgued · Oral argument before the Court.
  3. Not datedTaken upTaken up · Reached the Supreme Court on appeal, which the Court had to hear.
  4. Not datedCourt belowCourt below · Decided by the U.S. Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit: affirmed.
  5. Not datedBeganBegan · The case began in the District Of Columbia U.S. District Court.
Data notes

From the Supreme Court Database: the court the case began in, the court whose decision the Supreme Court reviewed and what that court did, how the case came to the Court, and the dates of argument and decision. The database does not date the steps in the lower courts. Court names are the database’s.

Report a correction

Other decisions on the same issue

27 other argued cases since 1946 on campaign spending, newest first.

  1. National Republican Senatorial Committee v. Federal Election Commission225 L. Ed. 2d 998Jun 30, 2026 · 225 L. Ed. 2d 998First Amendment6–36–3 band

  2. Federal Election Commission v. Ted Cruz for SenateLandmark · Freedom of speech and of the press142 S. Ct. 1638May 16, 2022 · 142 S. Ct. 1638First Amendment6–36–3 band

  3. Williams–Yulee v. the Florida Bar575 U.S. 433Apr 29, 2015 · 575 U.S. 433First Amendment5–45–4 band

  4. McCutcheon v. FECLandmark · Freedom of speech and of the press572 U.S. 185Apr 2, 2014 · 572 U.S. 185First Amendment5–45–4 band

  5. Arizona Free Enterprise Club's Freedom Club Pac, et al., Petitioners v. Ken Bennett, in His Official Capacity As Arizona Secretary of State, et al.564 U.S. 721Jun 27, 2011 · 564 U.S. 721First Amendment5–45–4 band
  6. Citizens United v. Federal Election CommissionLandmark · Freedom of speech and of the press558 U.S. 310Jan 21, 2010 · 558 U.S. 310First Amendment5–45–4 band
  7. Davis v. FECLandmark · Freedom of speech and of the press554 U.S. 724Jun 26, 2008 · 554 U.S. 724First Amendment5–45–4 band
  8. Federal Election Commission v. Wisconsin Right to Life, Inc.551 U.S. 449Jun 25, 2007 · 551 U.S. 449First Amendment5–45–4 band

  9. Neil Randall, et al. v. William H. Sorrell et al.548 U.S. 230Jun 26, 2006 · 548 U.S. 230First Amendment6–36–3 band

  10. Wisconsin Right to Life, Inc. v. Federal Election Commission546 U.S. 410Jan 23, 2006 · 546 U.S. 410First Amendment9–0Unanimous band
  11. Mitch McConnell, United States Senator, et al. v. Federal Election Commission, et al.Landmark · Freedom of speech and of the press540 U.S. 93Dec 10, 2003 · 540 U.S. 93First Amendment5–45–4 band

  12. Federal Election Commission v. Christine Beaumont et al.539 U.S. 146Jun 16, 2003 · 539 U.S. 146First Amendment7–27–2 band
  13. Federal Election Commission v. Colorado Republican Federal Campaign Committee533 U.S. 431Jun 25, 2001 · 533 U.S. 431First Amendment5–45–4 band

  14. Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Attorney General of Missouri, et al. v. Shrink Missouri Government Pac et al.528 U.S. 377Jan 24, 2000 · 528 U.S. 377First Amendment6–36–3 band

  15. Colorado Republican Federal Campaign Committee and Douglas Jones, Treasurer v. Federal Election Commission518 U.S. 604Jun 26, 1996 · 518 U.S. 604First Amendment7–27–2 band

  16. Austin, Michigan Secretary of State, et al. v. Michigan State Chamber of Commerce494 U.S. 652Mar 27, 1990 · 494 U.S. 652First Amendment6–36–3 band
  17. Federal Election Commission v. Massachusetts Citizens for Life, Inc.479 U.S. 238Dec 15, 1986 · 479 U.S. 238First Amendment5–45–4 band
  18. Federal Election Commission v. National Conservative Political Action Committee et al.470 U.S. 480Mar 18, 1985 · 470 U.S. 480First Amendment7–27–2 band
  19. Federal Election Commission et al. v. National Right to Work Committee et al.459 U.S. 197Dec 13, 1982 · 459 U.S. 197First Amendment9–0Unanimous band
  20. Brown et al. v. Socialist Workers '74 Campaign Committee (Ohio) et al.459 U.S. 87Dec 8, 1982 · 459 U.S. 87First Amendment6–36–3 band
  21. Bread Political Action Committee et al. v. Federal Election Commission et al.455 U.S. 577Mar 8, 1982 · 455 U.S. 577First Amendment9–0Unanimous band
  22. Citizens Against Rent Control/Coalition for Fair Housing et al. v. City of Berkeley, California, et al.454 U.S. 290Dec 14, 1981 · 454 U.S. 290First Amendment8–18–1 band
  23. Federal Election Commission v. Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee et al.454 U.S. 27Nov 10, 1981 · 454 U.S. 27First Amendment9–0Unanimous band
  24. California Medical Association et al. v. Federal Election Commission et al.453 U.S. 182Jun 26, 1981 · 453 U.S. 182First Amendment5–0Unanimous band
  25. First National Bank of Boston et al. v. Bellotti, Attorney General of Massachusetts435 U.S. 765Apr 26, 1978 · 435 U.S. 765First Amendment5–45–4 band

  26. Cort et al. v. Ash422 U.S. 66Jun 17, 1975 · 422 U.S. 66First Amendment9–0Unanimous band
  27. United States v. International Union United Automobile, Aircraft and Agricultural Implement Workers of America (UAW-CIO)352 U.S. 567Mar 11, 1957 · 352 U.S. 567First Amendment5–36–3 band
Data notes

Every other orally argued case with a clear vote, from the 1946 term on, that the Supreme Court Database files under the same issue as this one. The database gives each case one issue from a list of about 270 (abortion, search and seizure of vehicles, the death penalty, and so on), whatever law it turned on.

Report a correction

Official record

Read the full opinion on Justia, the argument audio on Oyez and Wikipedia. Case data from the Supreme Court Database, Version 2026 Release 01, through the 2025 term.