In the case of Pressler v. Blumenthal, Representative Bill Pressler argued that a provision in the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 violated his First Amendment rights by limiting campaign contributions and expenditures. The Supreme Court ruled against him, stating that these limitations were necessary to prevent corruption or its appearance in politics. Furthermore, they found no violation of free speech as candidates could still communicate their messages effectively within these limits. This decision upheld previous rulings on similar cases such as Buckley v. Valeo which also affirmed the constitutionality of federal laws restricting campaign finance.

In the dissenting opinion for Pressler v. Blumenthal, Justice Rehnquist argued that the case should not have been dismissed on grounds of lack of standing. He contended that a Member of Congress has a legitimate claim to judicial relief when he alleges that his vote has been diluted or nullified by an executive action which is contrary to specific statutory prohibition. In this particular case, Representative Pressler alleged such dilution due to Secretary Blumenthal's actions in disbursing funds without proper appropriation from Congress - thus violating Article I, Section 9 clause 7 of the Constitution and infringing upon Congressional power over public treasury disbursements. Justice Rehnquist believed these allegations were sufficient enough for standing and warranted further examination rather than dismissal.