skip navigation
search
 
Supreme Court

Buckley v. Valeo (No. 75-436)
No. 75-36, 171 U.S.App.D.C. 172, 519 F.2d 821, affirmed in part and reversed in part; No. 75-437, 401 F.Supp. 1235, affirmed.
Syllabus

Opinion
[ ]
CDInPart
[ Burger ]
CDInPart
[ White ]
CDInPart
[ Marshall ]
CDInPart
[ Blackmun ]
CDInPart
[ Rehnquist ]
HTML version
PDF version		HTML version
PDF version		HTML version
PDF version		HTML version
PDF version		HTML version
PDF version		HTML version
PDF version		HTML version
PDF version

BLACKMUN, J., Concurring in Part, Dissenting in Part

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

424 U.S. 1

Buckley v. Valeo

APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

No. 75-436 Argued: November 10, 1975 --- Decided: January 30, 1976 [*]

MR. JUSTICE BLACKMUN, concurring in part and dissenting in part.

I am not persuaded that the Court makes, or indeed is able to make, a principled constitutional distinction between the contribution limitations, on the one hand, and the expenditure limitations, on the other, that are involved here. I therefore do not join Part I-B of the Court's opinion or those portions of Part I-A that are consistent with Part I-B. As to those, I dissent.

I also dissent, accordingly, from the Court's responses to certified questions 3(b), (c), and (h). I would answer those questions in the affirmative.

I do join the remainder of the Court's opinion and its answers to the other certified questions.