Randall v. Sorrell — Stevens, J., Dissenting

Summary

Justice Stevens dissents, arguing that Buckley v. Valeo’s holding rejecting candidate expenditure limits was incorrect and should be overruled because limiting spending does not restrict speech directly and protects candidates from the burden of fundraising. He would uphold Vermont’s expenditure limits and joins Parts II and III of Justice Souter’s dissent upholding the contribution limits. Justice Kennedy and Thomas concur in the judgment to strike down the limits but disagree with the plurality’s reasoning.