In the case of Brown v. Hartlage, a candidate for public office in Kentucky was sued by his opponent after promising to reduce his salary if elected. The Supreme Court ruled that this promise did not constitute bribery and therefore did not violate any laws. The court argued that such promises are part of political discourse and should be protected under the First Amendment's freedom of speech clause. This ruling overturned an earlier decision by the Kentucky Court of Appeals which had invalidated Hartlage's election victory on these grounds.

In the dissenting opinion for Brown v. Hartlage, Justice William Rehnquist disagreed with the majority's view that a candidate’s promise to reduce his salary if elected was protected by First Amendment rights. He argued that such promises could potentially corrupt the political process and undermine public confidence in government officials. Furthermore, he contended that states should have broad authority to regulate their own electoral processes without interference from federal courts unless there is clear evidence of constitutional violations. In this case, he did not believe any such violation had occurred because Kentucky law prohibited candidates from making financial pledges as part of their campaign strategy – a restriction which he deemed reasonable and necessary to maintain integrity in politics.