## Facts

- Berkeley, California enacted an ordinance regulating campaign financing for ballot measures submitted to popular vote.
- The ordinance limited any individual’s contribution to any committee supporting or opposing a ballot measure to $250.
- The ordinance also required disclosure of contributors’ identities.
- Citizens Against Rent Control/Coalition for Fair Housing organized to oppose a rent-control initiative and accepted contributions exceeding $250.
- The city’s Fair Campaign Practices Commission ordered the group to pay the excess contributions into the city treasury under the ordinance.
- The association challenged the ordinance as violating First Amendment rights of political speech and association.
- The California Superior Court invalidated the ordinance; the Court of Appeal affirmed; the California Supreme Court reversed, accepting an interest in preventing “corruption” of the initiative process.
- The U.S. Supreme Court reversed the California Supreme Court.

## Issues

1. Whether a municipal ordinance capping contributions to committees supporting or opposing ballot measures violates the First Amendment rights of speech and association.
2. Whether anti-corruption interests that justify candidate-contribution limits support similar limits in ballot-measure campaigns where no candidate is involved.
3. Whether disclosure requirements adequately address governmental interests in informing voters, making a contribution cap unjustified.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court reversed and remanded in an 8–1 decision.
- The Court held the $250 contribution limit for ballot-measure committees unconstitutional on its face.
- The Court concluded the cap burdens political association and, by limiting pooled resources, restricts political expression.
- The Court rejected the asserted interest in preventing corruption of the initiative process because ballot-measure committees do not present quid pro quo corruption risks.
- The Court emphasized that disclosure of contributors’ identities addressed voter-information concerns without restricting contributions.

## Legal Principles

- Limits on contributions to ballot-measure committees impose a direct burden on First Amendment rights of association and political expression by restricting individuals’ ability to pool resources for advocacy.
- The anti-corruption rationale that can justify contribution limits in candidate elections does not translate to ballot measures because there is no officeholder to corrupt.
- Where disclosure laws identify contributors and amounts, the government generally lacks a sufficient justification to impose low contribution caps on ballot-measure committees.
- Contribution caps on ballot-measure committees can operate as effective limits on expenditures, and expenditure restraints are direct restrictions on political expression subject to exacting judicial review.
- Governmental attempts to restrict political influence by limiting fundraising in ballot-measure campaigns function as impermissible suppression of political advocacy rather than prevention of corruption.

## Conclusion

The Court invalidated Berkeley’s $250 cap on contributions to ballot-measure committees because it restrained core political association and expression without a corruption-based justification, and because disclosure requirements already served informational interests without curtailing debate.


Citizens Against Rent Control/Coalition for Fair Housing v. City of Berkeley, 454 U.S. 290 (1981)