October Term 2005 · Docket 04-1528

Can States Cap Campaign Spending to Prevent Corruption?

the sides that brought the case argue Vermont's spending limits violate free speech. the opposing sides claim the limits prevent corruption.

Official caption
Randall v. Sorrell
Latest argument session
Latest official Court activity
Latest verified event
Argued
Sources analyzed through
Official Transcript

Verified source milestones

  1. — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.

The arguments, in order

This case may have been argued more than once. Each entry below uses that session's official transcript. Later arguments do not erase earlier ones.

  1. Argument 1 ·

    What happened at the argument

    Mr. Bopp argued candidates must freely express views on public issues.

    Mr. Sorrell asserted money buys access to officials.

    Ms. Wright asked why voters do not simply vote out corrupt officials.

    Read the official transcript for this argument · Official argument details

    Sources used for this argument breakdown

A citizen's guide to the whole case

What this case is about

This case tests state power to limit campaign money. the sides that brought the case seek to strike down the limits. the opposing sides seek to keep them in place.

Official sources for this section

How the case got here

The Supreme Court heard oral argument in this case on February 28, 2006.

Official sources for this section

What each side wants

the sides that brought the case want the Court to strike down Vermont's spending limits.

the opposing sides want the Court to uphold Vermont's spending limits.

Official sources for this section

What each side says

the sides that brought the case argue spending limits violate First Amendment free speech rights.

the opposing sides argue spending limits serve a compelling interest in preventing corruption.

Official sources for this section

What the justices asked

Justice Ginsburg asked if the sides that brought the case argue no limits on expenditures exist.

Justice Stevens asked why further hearings to justify limits would be inappropriate.

Official sources for this section

Why it matters

This dispute defines the boundary between free speech and election integrity. It shapes how states regulate political money. It affects every candidate's ability to speak. It determines the scope of anti-corruption laws.

Official sources for this section

What happens next

This article currently covers the argument record. Use the official docket link for later case activity.

Official sources for this section

Official Court provenance

Official docket and case history · Official Supreme Court oral-argument detail page

Title and summary sources

Revision history

  1. Revision 1 · Official Transcript ·

    Correction: Rewritten to the concise citizen-facing editorial standard.

  2. Revision 2 · Official Transcript ·

    Correction: Migrated to the dated official Court activity contract without model use.

Download this sanitized case as JSON