In the case of Crowell, Secretary of State of Tennessee, et al. v. Mader et al., 1979, the Supreme Court was asked to determine whether a state law that required all candidates for public office to disclose their campaign expenditures violated the First Amendment rights to free speech and association. The plaintiffs argued that this requirement infringed on their right to engage in political activity without government interference or scrutiny. The court ruled in favor of the defendants (the state), upholding Tennessee's disclosure requirements as constitutional under both federal and state laws. It found that these regulations served important governmental interests related to preventing corruption and informing voters about who is funding campaigns - benefits which outweighed any potential infringement on individual rights. This decision affirmed states' authority to regulate campaign finance within certain limits while also protecting individuals' constitutional rights.

In the dissenting opinion for Crowell v. Mader, Justice Brennan disagreed with the majority's decision to uphold Tennessee's durational residency requirement for candidates seeking state office. He argued that this requirement violated both the Equal Protection Clause and First Amendment rights of potential candidates who had not lived in Tennessee long enough to meet it. Brennan contended that such a restriction was unnecessary as voters could decide whether a candidate’s length of residence affected their suitability for office. Furthermore, he believed there were less restrictive means available to ensure informed voting and local representation without infringing on constitutional rights. The justice also pointed out inconsistencies in how states applied these requirements, suggesting they were arbitrary rather than essential prerequisites for public service.