The U.S. Supreme Court case Neil Randall, et al. v. William H. Sorrell et al., 2005, dealt with the constitutionality of Vermont's campaign finance law that imposed strict limits on contributions and expenditures in state elections - the most stringent in the nation at that time. The plaintiffs argued that these restrictions violated their First Amendment rights to free speech by limiting their ability to fundraise and spend money on political campaigns. In a plurality decision, the court struck down both contribution and expenditure limits as unconstitutional under the First Amendment of U.S Constitution because they were too restrictive and did not adequately serve a compelling state interest to justify such infringement upon free speech rights. This ruling affirmed that while states have an interest in preventing corruption or its appearance through campaign finance regulation, any measures taken must be closely drawn so as not to unnecessarily abridge freedom of speech or association.

In the dissenting opinion for the case of Neil Randall et al. v. William H. Sorrell et al., Justice Stephen Breyer, joined by Justices David Souter and Ruth Bader Ginsburg, argued that Vermont's campaign finance law should have been upheld as constitutional because it served a compelling state interest in combating corruption and its appearance in politics. They disagreed with the majority's view that the law was too restrictive on political speech rights under First Amendment protections, arguing instead that such restrictions were necessary to maintain public confidence in democracy and prevent undue influence from wealthy donors or special interests groups. The dissenters also contended that previous Supreme Court rulings had recognized these concerns as valid reasons for limiting campaign contributions and expenditures.