Activities Campaign Reform: Supreme Court Cases Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1 (1976) In this case the Court found that restrictions on individual contributions to political campaigns and candidates did not violate the First Amendment. But restriction of independent expenditures in campaigns, the limitation on expenditures by candidates from their own personal or family resources, and limitations on total campaign expenditures did violate the First Amendment right to speech. First National Bank of Boston v. Bellotti, 435 U.S. 765 (1978) A total state ban on money contributions by corporations to influence the outcome of a referendum violates the First Amendment. California Medical Association v. Federal Election Commission, 453 U.S. 182 (1981) A $5,000 per year limit on contributions that an individual or unincorporated association can contribute to a political action committee is constitutional does not violate the First Amendment. Citizens Against Rent Control/Coalition for Fair Housing v. City of Berkeley, 454 U.S. 290 (1981) A city ordinance limiting to $250 the amount a citizen may contribute to a group taking a position on a ballot measure violates the First Amendment. Brown v. Socialist Workers ’74 Campaign Committee, 459 U.S. 87 (1982) An Ohio statute requiring candidates to disclose the names and addresses of campaign contributors and the recipients of campaign expenditures violates the First Amendment. That amendment prohibits a state from compelling disclosure by a minor party that will subject those persons identified to the reasonable probability of threats, harassment, or reprisals. Federal Election Commission v. National Conservative Political Action Committee, 470 U.S. 480 (1985) The $1,000 limit imposed by the Federal Election Campaign Act amendments on independent expenditures by political action committees in presidential campaigns violates the First Amendment. Federal Election Commission v. Massachusetts Citizens for Life, Inc., 479 U.S. 238 (1986) A Federal Elections Commission regulation prohibiting political expenditure by nonprofit advocacy groups that take a position on an issue such as abortion or school vouchers violates the Fist Amendment. These groups may sponsor advertisements urging voters to support or reject specific candidates. Austin v. Michigan State Chamber of Commerce, 494 U.S. 652 (1990) A Michigan statue prohibiting corporations form using corporate treasury funds for independent expenditures to support or oppose candidates in state elections is constitutional. Campaign Reform Activities Main Page >>Brush Up on Your Voting Smarts >>Voting & Youth Citizenship >>Voter Registration >>Campaign Reform Conversation | Voting | *Activities* | Resources Online Conversations | Law, Diversity, and the Vote