Randall v. Sorrell

Summary

The Court held that Vermont's Act 64 limits on campaign expenditures violate the First Amendment under Buckley v. Valeo. It further held that contribution limits violate the First Amendment because they are too low and not closely tailored to prevent corruption, disproportionately burdening challengers and parties. Justice Stevens and Souter dissented, arguing expenditure limits should stand to free candidates from fundraising burdens.