Randall v. Sorrell, 548 U.S. 230 (2006)
Primary Holding
Both the expenditure limits and the contribution limits imposed by Vermont's campaign finance statute are unconstitutional under the First Amendment, as they violate established precedent and fail to meet the requirement of careful tailoring, imposing disproportionately severe burdens on First Amendment interests.
In the case of Randall v. Sorrell, the Supreme Court decided that Vermont's laws limiting how much candidates could spend on their campaigns and how much individuals could donate were unconstitutional. This matters because it protects the right to free speech in political campaigns, allowing candidates to spend more freely and receive larger donations, which can help them reach voters better. This case is relevant if you're involved in politics or care about how campaign financing works, as it impacts the rules around funding political candidates and their messages.
AI-generated plain-language summary to help you understand this case
A campaign finance law in Vermont limited how much political candidates could spend during an election cycle and how much individuals, political groups, and parties could spend on the candidate's behalf. The limits for contributions by non-candidates were set at $200-400 per candidate.
Whether Vermont's campaign finance statute, which imposes limits on both candidate expenditures and contributions to campaigns, violates the First Amendment.
The judgment is reversed.
This case expands on the earlier decision of Buckley v. Valeo, but it still left open the questions of whether mandatory limits ever will be upheld. Existing regulations on voluntary expenditures also survived this decision, which dealt with one specific provision.
- Court
- Supreme Court
- Decision Date
- February 28, 2006
- Jurisdiction
- federal
- Case Type
- landmark
- Damages Awarded
- N/A
- Data Quality
- high
Wisconsin Right to Life, Inc. v. Federal Election Comm'n, 546 U.S. 410 (2006)
Consumer WonThe Supreme Court held that the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act's prohibition on electioneering communications can be subject to as-applied constitutional challenges, allowing organizations like Wisconsin Right to Life, Inc. to argue that specific communications should not be classified as electioneering based on their content and context.
Clingman v. Beaver, 544 U.S. 581 (2005)
Consumer LostOklahoma's semiclosed primary system, which allows only registered party members and Independents to vote in a party's primary, does not violate the First Amendment right to freedom of political association. States have broad authority to regulate the manner of elections, including the structure of their primary systems.
Rumsfeld v. Forum for Academic and Institutional Rights, Inc., 547 U.S. 47 (2006)
Consumer LostThe Solomon Amendment does not violate the First Amendment rights of law schools because it does not compel them to express any particular message, but rather conditions federal funding on providing military recruiters equal access to students, thereby allowing the government to promote its interest in military recruitment.
Johanns v. Livestock Marketing Association, 544 U.S. 550 (2005)
Consumer LostThe generic advertising funded by the Beef Promotion and Research Act constitutes government speech and is therefore exempt from First Amendment scrutiny.