Decision
On January 30, 1976 the Supreme Court of the United States announced the decision of Buckley v. Valeo, 7 votes for Buckley and 1 vote against. Justice Brennan, Stewart, and Powell joined the majority opinion, while Justice Marshall, Blackmun, Rehnquist, and White wrote the concurring opinion. Chief Justice Burger wrote the dissenting opinion and Justice Stevens took no part in the decision. A part of the final decision included the constitutionality of the appointment of the members of the Federal Election Commission (FEC). They ruled that it the way they appointed the commissioners was unconstitutional according to the Appointments Clause. The appointees needed to be nominated by the President and approved by congress, but the members of FEC did not go through this process.
The Court reached to two conclusions; first, they kept the restrictions on individual contributions to political campaigns and candidates because it did not violate First Amendment . The limitations placed by FECA supplemented the rectitude of our representative democracy by preventing immoral practices. Secondly, the court decided that the restriction of expenses by the candidate in campaigns, the limitation on a candidates own expenses, and the limitation on the total campaigns expenses did violate the First Amendment. Since these restrictions and limitations do not increase a candidates possibility of being corrupt, the Court came to a resolution that restricting these actions would limit a candidates ability to participate in their right to political expression.
The Court reached to two conclusions; first, they kept the restrictions on individual contributions to political campaigns and candidates because it did not violate First Amendment . The limitations placed by FECA supplemented the rectitude of our representative democracy by preventing immoral practices. Secondly, the court decided that the restriction of expenses by the candidate in campaigns, the limitation on a candidates own expenses, and the limitation on the total campaigns expenses did violate the First Amendment. Since these restrictions and limitations do not increase a candidates possibility of being corrupt, the Court came to a resolution that restricting these actions would limit a candidates ability to participate in their right to political expression.
"Buckley Et Al. v. Valeo - ACLU - ProCon.org." ProConorg Headlines. Web. 14 Dec. 2014. <http://aclu.procon.org/view.resource.php?resourceID=421>.
"BUCKLEY v. VALEO." Buckley v. Valeo. Web. 14 Dec. 2014. <http://www.oyez.org/cases/1970-1979/1975/1975_75_436#sort=vote>.