In a decision virtually unprecedented in scope, the Supreme Court, in Buckley v. Valeo, decided January 30, 1976, has ruled on a wide range of constitutional questions generated by federal campaign finance reform legis lation. In brief, limitations on contributions, reporting and disclosure requirements, and public financing of campaigns have been upheld as at least constitutional on their face, although the door is still open to attacks based on specific evidentiary showings of unconstitutional effects in particular situations. Limitations on expenditures—independently made on behalf of candidates, by candidates themselves out of their own funds, or in the course of the candidates' campaigns—have all been held unconstitutional, as infring ing upon rights under the First Amendment. The choices available for future legislative action, both federal and state, are henceforth likely to be limited in the light of the con straints to be found in the holdings and implications of this case.
