In Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1 (1976) (per curiam), this Court explained the standard for reviewing restrictions on contributions to candidates and political parties. Such limits could only “be sustained if the State demonstrates a sufficiently important interest and employs means closely drawn to avoid unnecessary abridgment of associational freedoms.” 424 U.S. at 25. The Court applied this “exacting” review, 454 U.S. at 294, over the ensuing decades, in cases such as Citizens Against Rent Control/Coalition for Fair Housing v. City of Berkeley, 454 U.S. 290, 294 (1981).
In 2006, however, the Court imposed a new gloss on Buckley, creating a two-step, multi-factor test for determining whether a given contribution limit was too low. Randall v. Sorrell, 548 U.S. 230 (2006). Three justices approved this test, which was contained in the narrowest—and thus controlling—opinion.
Unfortunately, despite professing a certain technocratic exactitude, the Randall plurality’s test cannot “be reduced to a workable inquiry,” Randall, 548 U.S. at 268 (Thomas, J., concurring in the judgment), and provides little useful guidance to the lower courts that are obliged to apply it.
Accordingly, this Court ought to grant the writ and formally supersede the Randall plurality’s opinion. See Citizens United v. Fed. Election Comm’n, 558 U.S. 310, 372-393 (2010) (Roberts, C.J., concurring). Furthermore, the Court should take the opportunity to clarify that Buckley mandates the application of “exacting scrutiny” to contribution limits. See Citizens United, 558 U.S. at 366-367.
