Brown v. Hartlage

Justice Brennan delivered the opinion for the Court, in which all justices but Rehnquist concurred. While conceding that it is legitimate for a state to make laws protecting the integrity of its electoral process, Brennan said that where abridgement of free speech is concerned, legitimacy is not enough: the state interest must be "compelling," and the prohibition must not unduly limit protected forms of expression.

Section 121.055 was made to prevent the buying of votes, Brennan noted, but such voter bribery normally goes on in secret, whereas Brown and Creech made their promise openly. As for the possibility that the law had been enacted in order to maintain a level playing field by ensuring that the financial ability to forego the salary did not become a prerequisite for election (thus limiting candidacy to the independently wealthy), Brennan did not find this an adequate justification for abridging the right to free speech. In other words, "The state's fear that voters might make an ill-advised choice does not provide the state with a compelling justification for limiting speech."