''Randall v. Sorrell'', 548 U.S. 230 (2006), is a decision by the

Supreme Court of the United States The Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) is the highest court in the federal judiciary of the United States. It has ultimate appellate jurisdiction over all U.S. Federal tribunals in the United States, federal court cases, and over Stat ...

involving a

Vermont Vermont () is a U.S. state, state in the northeast New England region of the United States. Vermont is bordered by the states of Massachusetts to the south, New Hampshire to the east, and New York (state), New York to the west, and the Provin ...

law which placed a cap on financial donations made to politicians. The court ruled that Vermont's law, the strictest in the nation, unconstitutionally hindered the citizens'

First Amendment First or 1st is the ordinal form of the number one (#1). First or 1st may also refer to: *World record, specifically the first instance of a particular achievement Arts and media Music * 1$T, American rapper, singer-songwriter, DJ, and reco ...

right to free speech. A key issue in the case was the 1976 case ''

Buckley v. Valeo ''Buckley v. Valeo'', 424 U.S. 1 (1976), was a landmark decision of the US Supreme Court on campaign finance. A majority of justices held that, as provided by section 608 of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971, limits on election expenditur ...

'',. which many justices felt needed to be revisited.

Opinion of the Court

The 6–3 ruling dealt with three individual issues before the court. *Did Vermont's law violate the

, Fourteenth Amendment, following the Supreme Court ruling in ''

'', which struck down limits on campaign expenditures as unconstitutional? *Did Vermont violate the right of political parties to make independent expenditures in accordance with the aforementioned amendments, following the Supreme Court ruling in '' Colorado Republican Federal Campaign Committee v. FEC''? *Did Vermont's contribution limits, which are the lowest in the country, allow only a single maximum contribution over a two-year election cycle, and prohibit state political parties from contributing more than $400 to their gubernatorial candidate, fall below an acceptable constitutional threshold and should be struck down? In ''Buckley'', the Supreme Court had upheld contribution limits on the basis of the government's "compelling interest" in preventing political corruption or its appearance, but had left open the possibility that if limits were set so low as to prevent speakers from effectively presenting their message to the public, such limits might be unconstitutional. The State of Vermont argued that new circumstances and experiences since ''Buckley v. Valeo'' was decided in 1976 suggested that the law should be upheld as Constitutional. The Supreme Court ruled against the state of Vermont on all three issues, reaffirming both ''Buckley'' and ''Colorado Republican Federal Campaign Committee'' and striking down the law as unconstitutional.''The Supreme Court, 2005 Term — Leading Cases,''
120 Harv. L. Rev. 283 (2006). ''Randall'' is particularly important as the first case in which the Supreme Court has struck down a contribution limit as unconstitutionally low.

References

External links

*
Ohio State Law Journal Symposium on Randall v. Sorrell
{{US1stAmendment, speech United States Supreme Court cases United States Supreme Court cases of the Roberts Court United States Free Speech Clause case law United States elections case law 2006 in United States case law

Opinion of the Court

See also

Further reading

References

External links