Randall v. Sorrell
Supreme Court of the United States
1Dissent · StevensJustice Stevens
Justice Breyer and Justice Souter debate whether the per curiam decision in Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U. S. 1 (1976), forecloses any constitutional limitations on candidate expenditures. This is plainly an issue on which reasonable minds can disagree. The Buckley Court never explicitly ad*274dressed whether the pernicious effects of endless fundraising can serve as a compelling state interest that justifies expenditure limits, post, at 282 (Souter, J., dissenting), yet its silence, in light of the record before it, suggests that it implicitly treated this proposed interest insufficient, ante, at…
Also in this document: Dissent · Souter.
2Cases cited26 opinions
- Buckley v. ValeoSupreme Court of the United States · 1976
- County Court of Ulster Cty. v. AllenSupreme Court of the United States · 1979
- United States v. HarrissSupreme Court of the United States · 1954
- Lawrence v. TexasSupreme Court of the United States · 2003
- Georgia v. RandolphSupreme Court of the United States · 2006
21 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.