Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
4 canonical passages across 4 cases, quoted by 109 opinions in total. These passages cluster together because the same opinions keep quoting them side by side: they state parts of one doctrine. The anchor passage is from Buckley v. Valeo.
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Buckley v. Valeo Anchor | red | “a restriction on the amount of money a person or group can spend on political communication during a campaign necessarily reduces the quantity of expression by restricting the number of issues discussed, the depth of their exploration, and the size of the audience reached.” | 78 |
| 2 | Federal Election Commission v. Massachusetts Citizens for Life, Inc. | green | “we have consistently held that restrictions on contributions require less compelling justification than restrictions on independent spending.” | 23 |
| 3 | Vannatta v. Keisling | green | “restrictions on contributions ... are subjected to less exacting scrutiny than restrictions on independent expenditures” | 4 |
| 4 | Service Employees International Union v. Fair Political Practices Commission | green | “somewhat less stringent test than strict scrutiny” | 4 |
A red or yellow flag on a member means the underlying case has negative treatment: for those, check the case page before relying on the passage.