The U.S. Supreme Court case Citizens Against Rent Control/Coalition for Fair Housing et al. v. City of Berkeley, California, et al., 1981 revolved around a city ordinance in Berkeley that limited contributions to committees formed to support or oppose ballot measures to $250 per person per election. The court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs (Citizens Against Rent Control), stating that the ordinance violated their First Amendment rights by limiting their ability to express political views through financial contributions. The justices argued that such limitations could only be justified if they served a compelling state interest and were closely drawn to avoid unnecessary abridgment of associational freedoms - conditions which this particular restriction did not meet according to them.

The dissenting opinion in the case of Citizens Against Rent Control/Coalition for Fair Housing v. City of Berkeley, California argued that the majority's decision to strike down a local ordinance limiting contributions to committees formed to support or oppose ballot measures was incorrect. The dissenters believed that such limits were necessary and constitutional as they served important governmental interests: preventing corruption or its appearance, equalizing access to political power by reducing the influence of wealth on politics, and maintaining faith in democracy among citizens. They also disagreed with the majority's view that these contribution limits violated First Amendment rights because they saw them not as restrictions on speech but rather regulations aimed at preserving democratic processes from being distorted by large financial contributions.