Buckley v. Valeo (No. 75-436) No. 75-36, 171 U.S.App.D.C. 172, 519 F.2d 821, affirmed in part and reversed in part; No. 75-437, 401 F.Supp. 1235, affirmed.
Syllabus	Opinion [ ]	CDInPart [ Burger ]	CDInPart [ White ]	CDInPart [ Marshall ]	CDInPart [ Blackmun ]	CDInPart [ Rehnquist ]
HTML version PDF version	HTML version PDF version	HTML version PDF version	HTML version PDF version	HTML version PDF version	HTML version PDF version	HTML version PDF version

BLACKMUN, J., Concurring in Part, Dissenting in Part

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

---

424 U.S. 1

Buckley v. Valeo

APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

---

No. 75-436 Argued: November 10, 1975 --- Decided: January 30, 1976 [*]

---

MR. JUSTICE BLACKMUN, concurring in part and dissenting in part.

I am not persuaded that the Court makes, or indeed is able to make, a principled constitutional distinction between the contribution limitations, on the one hand, and the expenditure limitations, on the other, that are involved here. I therefore do not join Part I-B of the Court's opinion or those portions of Part I-A that are consistent with Part I-B. As to those, I dissent.

I also dissent, accordingly, from the Court's responses to certified questions 3(b), (c), and (h). I would answer those questions in the affirmative.

I do join the remainder of the Court's opinion and its answers to the other certified questions.