This educational guide is based on the linked primary sources. It is not a Court publication, is not affiliated with the Court, and is not legal advice.
In brief
Overview
Background and question before the Court
What each side argues
Petitioners’ Position
According to Petitioners, as this Court made clear recently in Republican Party of Minnesota v. White, since political candidates are the ones who take office, it is imperative that they be allowed freely to express themselves on matters of current public importance. As a result, this Court has never allowed the government to prohibit candidates from communicating relevant information to voters during an election.
According to Mr. Bopp, there would be an absolute prohibition, and this Court in -- in Beaumont reserved that question of whether or not an absolute prohibition -- and -- and then in McConnell, you struck down the absolute prohibition on minors' contributing to campaigns. So, yes, there would be a absolute prohibition on any way for any individual to associate with a campaign through a contribution.
Respondents’ Position
According to Mr. Sorrell, money buys access. Our Governor admitted that in a State of the State address. But we also had testimony at trial from a former statewide officeholder that money, of course, buys access, but on the bad days, it buys influence.
What happened at oral argument
According to Justice Ginsburg, jUSTICE GINSBURG: Mr. Bopp, would you clarify a procedural point? As I understand it, on the expenditure issue, there is no final decision that has gone back to the district court for further proceedings.
According to Justice Kennedy, jUSTICE KENNEDY: Well, just --
According to Justice Souter, jUSTICE SOUTER: But on -- on your view, if -- if there were a -- a mandatory publicly funded scheme and the -- the limits on expenditure were very high -- it was a very generous scheme. They gave them lots of money -- it would still be unconstitutional because there would be -- I -- I take it on your view, because there would be an elimination of any way to participate by contributing. Is that correct?
According to Justice Scalia, jUSTICE SCALIA: But that's the limit you've placed on -- on contributions.
According to Justice Scalia, jUSTICE SCALIA: If the burden is on the candidate to establish that -- that somebody's expenditure is independent and shouldn't be counted against his expenditure limit.
So the case is going back to the trial court on those bases anyway.
We had a record in Vermont that showed that for the previous nine election cycles before the act was enacted, only one incumbent had been defeated for a statewide office.
- [1] c094cf2484364c071638-r1-3a92294cd28c949c.pdf, p. 6
- [2] c094cf2484364c071638-r1-3a92294cd28c949c.pdf, p. 9
- [3] c094cf2484364c071638-r1-3a92294cd28c949c.pdf, p. 21
- [4] c094cf2484364c071638-r1-3a92294cd28c949c.pdf, p. 29
- [5] c094cf2484364c071638-r1-3a92294cd28c949c.pdf, p. 39
- [6] c094cf2484364c071638-r1-3a92294cd28c949c.pdf, p. 38
- [7] c094cf2484364c071638-r1-3a92294cd28c949c.pdf, p. 53
What the Court decided
Why it matters
Terms to know
No glossary terms are available for this guide.
Primary sources
Read the source materials on the official site or open the immutable repository copy used for this guide.
- c094cf2484364c071638-r1-3a92294cd28c949c.pdforal argument transcript
Guide generated September 21, 2026. Automated validation accepted this version.