To accept this generalization one need not agree that the Amendment has its ‘fullest and most urgent application’ only in the political area, for others would think religious freedom is on the same or even a higher plane. But I doubt that the Court would tolerate for an instant a limitation on contributions to a church or other religious cause; however grave an ‘evil’ Congress thought the limits would cure, limits on religious expenditures would most certainly fall as well. To limit either contributions or expenditures as to churches would plainly restrict ‘the free exercise’ of religion. In my view Congress can no more ration political expression than it can ration religious expression; and limits on political or religious contributions and expenditures effectively curb expression in both areas. There are many prices we pay for the freedoms secured by the First Amendment; the risk of undue [424 U.S. 1, 257] influence is one of them, confirming what we have long known: Freedom is hazardous, but some restraints are worse. Chief Justice Burger
Partial Dissent/Partial Concurrence of Chief Justice Burger in Buckley v. Valeo