Cato Supreme Court Review 2005-2006

By Roger Pilon; Robert A. Levy et al. | Go to book overview
Save to active project

The Per Curiam Opinion of Steel:
Buckley v. Valeo as Superprecedent?
Clues from Wisconsin and Vermont

Allison R. Hayward*


I. Introduction

[W]e are talking about speech, money is speech, and speech
is money, whether it be buying television or radio time or
newspaper advertising, or even buying pencils and paper
and microphones. That’s the—that’s certainly clear, isn’t it?

Comments of Justice Potter Stewart during oral argument in Buckley v. Valeo, November 14, 1975.1

I think it was Holmes who said, once you admit the necessity
of drawing a line, you can always find something on one side or the other. It’s quite different between $1,000 and
$2,000 or 100 feet and 75 feet and advocacy with respect to
an election and advocacy with respect to an issue. It’s an
entirely different quality of a distinction.…

Comments of Chief Justice Roberts during oral argument in Wisconsin Right to Life v. FEC, January 17, 2006.2

I thought what [Buckley] said and what many of our other
cases say, with regard to expenditures in particular, is that
you’re not talking about money here. You’re talking about
speech. So long as all that money is going to campaigning,
you’re talking about speech. And when you say you don’t
need any more speech than this, that’s a very odd thing for
a United States government to say. Enough speech. You don’t

* Assistant Professor of Law, George Mason University School of Law. I would like to acknowledge generous summer 2006 support from George Mason University School of Law.

1 Transcript of Oral Argument at 67, Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1 (1976) (No. 75–436). 2 Transcript of Oral Argument at 49, Wisconsin Right to Life v. FEC, 126 S. Ct. 1016 (2006) (No. 04–1581).

-195-

Notes for this page

Add a new note
If you are trying to select text to create highlights or citations, remember that you must now click or tap on the first word, and then click or tap on the last word.
Loading One moment ...
Project items
Notes
Cite this page

Cited page

Style
Citations are available only to our active members.
Sign up now to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

Cited page

Bookmark this page
Cato Supreme Court Review 2005-2006
Settings

Settings

Typeface
Text size Smaller Larger
Search within

Search within this book

Look up

Look up a word

  • Dictionary
  • Thesaurus
Please submit a word or phrase above.
Print this page

Print this page

Why can't I print more than one page at a time?

While we understand printed pages are helpful to our users, this limitation is necessary to help protect our publishers' copyrighted material and prevent its unlawful distribution. We are sorry for any inconvenience.
Full screen
/ 401

matching results for page

Cited passage

Style
Citations are available only to our active members.
Sign up now to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

Cited passage

Welcome to the new Questia Reader

The Questia Reader has been updated to provide you with an even better online reading experience.  It is now 100% Responsive, which means you can read our books and articles on any sized device you wish.  All of your favorite tools like notes, highlights, and citations are still here, but the way you select text has been updated to be easier to use, especially on touchscreen devices.  Here's how:

1. Click or tap the first word you want to select.
2. Click or tap the last word you want to select.

OK, got it!

Thanks for trying Questia!

Please continue trying out our research tools, but please note, full functionality is available only to our active members.

Your work will be lost once you leave this Web page.

For full access in an ad-free environment, sign up now for a FREE, 1-day trial.

Already a member? Log in now.

Are you sure you want to delete this highlight?