Skip to content
Back to judgment

Citation network

Buckley Vs. Valeo

Cites for this judgment

  • US Supreme Court
  • Jan 30, 1976

Citation network · 7-day free trial

Brief every cited case in minutes

Open an 18-section AI Brief on any citation below, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial - no card required.

  • 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
  • Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
  • Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
  • Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

60 entries 10 linked 50 unlinked
Show
  1. Aetna Life Ins. Co. Vs. Haworth US Supreme Court · Mar 01, 1937
    Distinguished
  2. Mills Vs. Alabama US Supreme Court · May 23, 1966
  3. New York Times Co. Vs. Sullivan US Supreme Court · Mar 09, 1964
  4. Kusper Vs. Pontikes US Supreme Court · Nov 19, 1973
  5. Naacp Vs. Button US Supreme Court · Jan 14, 1963
  6. Shelton Vs. Tucker US Supreme Court · Dec 12, 1960
  7. Naacp Vs. Alabama US Supreme Court · Jun 08, 1959
  8. Williams Vs. Rhodes US Supreme Court · Oct 15, 1968
  9. Monitor Patriot Co. Vs. Roy US Supreme Court · Feb 24, 1971
    Distinguished
  10. Rosario Vs. Rockefeller US Supreme Court · Mar 21, 1973
  11. U.S. 1 (1976) U.S. Supreme Court Buckley v. Valeo
    Search
  12. U.S. 1 (1976) Buckley v. Valeo
    Search
  13. necessary to meet the requirements of Art. III. Baker v. Carr
    Search
  14. Roth v. United
    Search
  15. Winters v. New
    Search
  16. are elected will inevitably shape the course that we follow as a nation. As the Court observed in Monitor Patriot Co. v. Roy
    Search
  17. political association as well as political expression. The constitutional right of association explicated in NAACP v. Alabama
    Search
  18. U. S. 51 , 414 U. S. 56 , 414 U. S. 57 (1973), quoted in Cousins v. Wigoda
    Search
  19. those provisions should be viewed as regulating conduct, not speech, the Court of Appeals relied upon United States v. O'Brien
    Search
  20. to introduce a nonspeech element or to reduce the exacting scrutiny required by the First Amendment. See Bigelow v. Virginia
    Search
  21. supra at 376 U. S. 266 . For example, in Cox v. Louisiana
    Search
  22. suggest, by reference to the constitutional principles reflected in such Page 424 U. S. 18 decisions as Cox v. Louisiana
    Search
  23. Adderley v. Florida
    Search
  24. and Kovacs v. Cooper
    Search
  25. in order to further an important governmental interest unrelated to the restriction of communication. See Erznoznik v. City
    Search
  26. the original basis for the recognition of First Amendment protection of the freedom of association. See NAACP v. Alabama
    Search
  27. Sweezy v. New
    Search
  28. Hampshire, 354 U. S. 234 , 354 U. S. 250 (1957) (plurality opinion). See Cousins v. Page
    Search
  29. U. S. 479 , 364 U. S. 486 (1960). See, e.g., Bates v. Little
    Search
  30. CSC v. Letter
    Search
  31. important interest and employs means closely drawn to avoid unnecessary abridgment of associational freedoms. Cousins v. Wigoda
    Search
  32. awareness of the opportunities for abuse inherent in a regime of large individual financial contributions. In CSC v. Letter
    Search
  33. distinctions in degree become significant only when they can be said to amount to differences in kind. Compare Kusper v. Pontikes
    Search
  34. U. S. 51 (1973), with Rosario v. Rockefeller
    Search
  35. should generally be hesitant to invalidate legislation which on its face imposes evenhanded restrictions. Cf. James v. Valtierra
    Search
  36. as here, the legislation imposes criminal penalties in an area permeated by First Amendment interests. See Smith v. Goguen
    Search
  37. Cramp v. Board
    Search
  38. Smith v. California
    Search
  39. In an analogous Page 424 U. S. 43 context, this Court in Thomas v. Collins
    Search
  40. Id. at 323 U. S. 535 . See also United States v. Auto
    Search
  41. Gitlow v. New
    Search
  42. U. S. 673 (1925) (Holmes, J., dissenting). The constitutional deficiencies described in Thomas v. Collins
    Search
  43. to expend unlimited sums of money in order to obtain improper influence over candidates for elective office. Cf. Mills v. Alabama
    Search
  44. U.S. Supreme Court Buckley v. Valeo
    Search
  45. of Art. III. Baker v. Carr
    Search
  46. the First Amendment. See Bigelow v. Virginia
    Search
  47. See Erznoznik v. City
    Search
  48. See NAACP v. Alabama
    Search
  49. See Cousins v. Page
    Search
  50. Bates v. Little
    Search

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial