Buckley v. Valeo
E425629
Buckley v. Valeo is a landmark 1976 U.S. Supreme Court decision that reshaped campaign finance law by equating certain limits on political spending with restrictions on free speech under the First Amendment.
All labels observed (1)
| Label | Occurrences |
|---|---|
| Buckley v. Valeo canonical | 4 |
How this entity was disambiguated
This entity first appeared as the object of triple T4267646 — resolving that mention is where its identity was fixed. The disambiguator weighed these candidate entities and picked the highlighted one (or “None”, minting a new entity). This is how homonymy is resolved: the same surface form can point to different entities.
NED1
Entity disambiguation (via context triple)
gpt-5-mini-2025-08-07
Target entity: Buckley v. Valeo Context triple: [United States Supreme Court cases of the Burger Court, hasNotableCase, Buckley v. Valeo]
-
A.
Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission
Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission is a landmark 2010 U.S. Supreme Court case that dramatically expanded the political spending rights of corporations and unions by treating such expenditures as protected speech.
-
B.
Nixon v. Fitzgerald
Nixon v. Fitzgerald is a 1982 U.S. Supreme Court case that established absolute immunity from civil damages liability for a President’s official acts.
-
C.
Nixon v. Condon
Nixon v. Condon is a 1932 U.S. Supreme Court decision that struck down Texas’s delegation of authority to the Democratic Party to exclude Black voters from primary elections as unconstitutional state action under the Fourteenth Amendment.
-
D.
Katzenbach v. Morgan
Katzenbach v. Morgan is a 1966 U.S. Supreme Court case that upheld Congress’s power under the Fourteenth Amendment to prohibit certain state voting restrictions, reinforcing federal authority to protect voting rights.
-
E.
Cantwell v. Connecticut
Cantwell v. Connecticut is a 1940 U.S. Supreme Court case that first applied the First Amendment’s Free Exercise Clause to the states, striking down a state law that improperly restricted religious proselytizing.
- F. None of above. chosen
- G. Unsure - the case is ambiguous/there is not enough information to decide.
NED2
Entity disambiguation (via description)
gpt-5-mini-2025-08-07
Target entity: Buckley v. Valeo Target entity description: Buckley v. Valeo is a landmark 1976 U.S. Supreme Court decision that reshaped campaign finance law by equating certain limits on political spending with restrictions on free speech under the First Amendment.
-
A.
Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission
Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission is a landmark 2010 U.S. Supreme Court case that dramatically expanded the political spending rights of corporations and unions by treating such expenditures as protected speech.
-
B.
Nixon v. Fitzgerald
Nixon v. Fitzgerald is a 1982 U.S. Supreme Court case that established absolute immunity from civil damages liability for a President’s official acts.
-
C.
Nixon v. Condon
Nixon v. Condon is a 1932 U.S. Supreme Court decision that struck down Texas’s delegation of authority to the Democratic Party to exclude Black voters from primary elections as unconstitutional state action under the Fourteenth Amendment.
-
D.
Katzenbach v. Morgan
Katzenbach v. Morgan is a 1966 U.S. Supreme Court case that upheld Congress’s power under the Fourteenth Amendment to prohibit certain state voting restrictions, reinforcing federal authority to protect voting rights.
-
E.
Cantwell v. Connecticut
Cantwell v. Connecticut is a 1940 U.S. Supreme Court case that first applied the First Amendment’s Free Exercise Clause to the states, striking down a state law that improperly restricted religious proselytizing.
- F. None of above. chosen
Statements (50)
| Predicate | Object |
|---|---|
| instanceOf |
United States Supreme Court case
ⓘ
campaign finance case ⓘ landmark decision ⓘ |
| arguedDate | 1975-11-10 ⓘ |
| challengedStatute |
Federal Election Campaign Act Amendments of 1974
NERFINISHED
ⓘ
Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 NERFINISHED ⓘ |
| citation |
424 U.S. 1
ⓘ
46 L. Ed. 2d 659 ⓘ 96 S. Ct. 612 ⓘ |
| constitutionalProvisionInterpreted |
Article I of the United States Constitution
NERFINISHED
ⓘ
Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution NERFINISHED ⓘ First Amendment to the United States Constitution NERFINISHED ⓘ |
| country |
United States of America
ⓘ
surface form:
United States
|
| court | Supreme Court of the United States ⓘ |
| createdOrAffectedBody | Federal Election Commission NERFINISHED ⓘ |
| decidedIn | 1976 ⓘ |
| decisionDate | 1976-01-30 ⓘ |
| defendant | Francis R. Valeo NERFINISHED ⓘ |
| defendantPosition | Secretary of the United States Senate NERFINISHED ⓘ |
| distinguished | contributions from expenditures for First Amendment analysis ⓘ |
| docketNumber | 75-436 ⓘ |
| establishedDoctrine |
contribution–expenditure distinction in campaign finance law
ⓘ
money as a form of political speech ⓘ |
| fullCaseName | James L. Buckley et al. v. Francis R. Valeo, Secretary of the United States Senate, et al. NERFINISHED ⓘ |
| hasJurisdiction | United States NERFINISHED ⓘ |
| held |
disclosure and reporting requirements for campaign contributions are generally constitutional
ⓘ
limits on candidates’ personal expenditures in campaigns violate the First Amendment ⓘ limits on direct contributions to candidates are generally constitutional ⓘ limits on independent expenditures in campaigns violate the First Amendment ⓘ mandatory limits on overall campaign expenditures violate the First Amendment ⓘ original method of appointing Federal Election Commission members was unconstitutional ⓘ preventing corruption or the appearance of corruption is a sufficiently important governmental interest to justify contribution limits ⓘ public financing of presidential campaigns is constitutional ⓘ |
| impact |
influenced later campaign finance cases such as Citizens United v. FEC
ⓘ
limited Congress’s ability to cap campaign spending ⓘ reshaped U.S. campaign finance law ⓘ |
| language | English ⓘ |
| legalSubject |
campaign finance
ⓘ
constitutional law ⓘ election law ⓘ |
| majorityOpinionBy | per curiam ⓘ |
| plaintiff | James L. Buckley NERFINISHED ⓘ |
| rearguedDate |
1975-11-12
ⓘ
1975-11-13 ⓘ 1975-11-19 ⓘ 1975-11-25 ⓘ 1975-11-26 ⓘ |
| standardOfReview |
exacting scrutiny for contribution limits
ⓘ
strict scrutiny for expenditure limits ⓘ |
| term | 1975 Term ⓘ |
How these facts were elicited
The pipeline generated the facts above by prompting gpt-5.1 with this entity's name + description and the instruction below.
Instruction
You are a knowledge base construction expert. Given a subject entity and a description of it, return factual statements that you know for the subject as a JSON list of dictionaries(triples), where keys must be "subject", "predicate" and "object". The number of facts may be very high, between 25 to 50 or more, for very popular subjects. For less popular subjects, the number of facts can be very low, like 5 or 10. # Requirements - If you don't know the subject at all, return an empty list. - If the subject is not a named entity, return an empty list. - Include at least one triple where predicate is "instanceOf". - Do not get too wordy. - Separate several objects into multiple triples with one object.
Input
Subject: Buckley v. Valeo Description of subject: Buckley v. Valeo is a landmark 1976 U.S. Supreme Court decision that reshaped campaign finance law by equating certain limits on political spending with restrictions on free speech under the First Amendment.
Referenced by (4)
Full triples — surface form annotated when it differs from this entity's canonical label.