The case of California Medical Association v. Federal Election Commission, 1980, revolved around the question of whether or not a non-profit corporation's political action committee (PAC) could be limited in its contributions to federal election campaigns under the Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA). The FECA had set limits on individual and group campaign contributions but allowed unlimited "independent expenditures" that were not coordinated with candidates. The California Medical Association argued that their PAC was an independent entity and thus should be exempt from these limitations. However, the Supreme Court ruled against them in a 6-3 decision stating that Congress has the authority to regulate such committees as they pose potential corruption risks similar to those posed by corporations and labor unions. Therefore, it upheld FECA's restrictions on PACs associated with corporations including nonprofit ones like medical associations.

In the dissenting opinion for California Medical Association v. Federal Election Commission, Justice Blackmun argued that the majority's decision to uphold restrictions on contributions to political action committees (PACs) was misguided and overly broad. He contended that these limitations infringed upon First Amendment rights of free speech and association, particularly as they applied not just to corporations but also non-profit organizations like trade associations or labor unions. Furthermore, he disagreed with the majority's assertion that such restrictions were necessary to prevent corruption or its appearance in politics; instead, he believed this rationale was insufficiently compelling given its impact on constitutional freedoms. In his view, PACs played a crucial role in facilitating collective political expression among individuals who might otherwise struggle to make their voices heard - thus any constraints on their funding should be subject scrutiny under strict judicial review standards rather than being automatically accepted as legitimate.