Dissent
Justice Marshall and Rehnquist concurred in part and dissented in part. Justice Marshall dissented the portion that limited the amount of personal expenditures by a candidate. Marshall believed that limiting the amount of personal expenditures is not a violation of the First amendment because it has the ability to reduce the advantage of wealthy candidates. He believes that it will promote equal access to politics for all prospective candidates. Justice Marshall then agreed with the rest of the court's opinion. Justice Rehnquist dissented in part, he believed that the public financing for the presidential campaign expenses were biased toward major political parties and against independent and minor parties, he expressed that is was a violation of the First and Fifth Amendment.
Chief Justice Burger concurred with two of the six holdings, he dissented the other holdings. He believed that the requirement of disclosing and reporting all contributions and expenditures were a violation of the First Amendment because they were too broad. Chief Justice Burger also believed that the limitations on contributions violates the First Amendment because if someone wants to contribute to a candidate that they will vote for, that person is using her freedom of speech by contributing to the candidate. Lastly, Burger believed that the governments intrusion regarding public financing of presidential campaigns should not have been allowed into the previously private and institutional process.
Chief Justice Burger concurred with two of the six holdings, he dissented the other holdings. He believed that the requirement of disclosing and reporting all contributions and expenditures were a violation of the First Amendment because they were too broad. Chief Justice Burger also believed that the limitations on contributions violates the First Amendment because if someone wants to contribute to a candidate that they will vote for, that person is using her freedom of speech by contributing to the candidate. Lastly, Burger believed that the governments intrusion regarding public financing of presidential campaigns should not have been allowed into the previously private and institutional process.
"United States, Buckley v. Valeo." United States, Buckley v. Valeo. Web. 14 Dec. 2014. <http://www.hrcr.org/safrica/expression/buckley_valeo.html>.