Question: Were South Carolina v. Katzenbach and Buckley v. Valeo decided in the same year?

Context paragraphs:
Francis R. Valeo: Francis Ralph "Frank" Valeo (January 30, 1916 – April 9, 2006) was the Secretary of the United States Senate and "ex officio" member of the Federal Election Commission.  He was the defendant/appellee for the Federal government of the United States in Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1 (1976), in which the Supreme Court of the United States upheld federal limits on campaign contributions.

Dark money: In the politics of the United States, dark money are funds given to nonprofit organizations—and include 501(c)(4) (social welfare) 501(c)(5) (unions) and 501(c)(6) (trade association) groups—that can receive unlimited donations from corporations, individuals, and unions, and spend funds to influence elections, but are not required to disclose their donors.  Dark money first entered politics with Buckley v. Valeo (1976) when the supreme court laid out Eight Magic Words that define the difference between electioneering and issue advocacy.

South Carolina v. North Carolina: South Carolina v. North Carolina, 558 U.S. 256 (2010) is a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States settled a dispute between the states of South Carolina and North Carolina regarding which parties may intervene in litigation between two states over water rights.  By a 5-4 vote, the Court held that an interstate water authority and the Duke Energy Corporation could intervene, while ruling unanimously that the city of Charlotte, North Carolina, could not.

Citizens Against Rent Control v. City of Berkeley: Citizens Against Rent Control v. City of Berkeley, 454 U.S. 290 (1981), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States invalidated a California law that set limits on contributions to ballot issue campaigns.  The ruling relies heavily on the Court's earlier decisions in Buckley v. Valeo, holding that limits on contributions to political candidates implicate the First Amendment, and First National Bank of Boston v. Bellotti, holding that the state governments have no compelling interest in limiting spending on speech about ballot issues.

Randall v. Sorrell: Randall v. Sorrell, 548 U.S. 230 (2006), is a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States involving a Vermont law which placed a cap on financial donations made to politicians.  The court ruled that Vermont's law, the strictest in the nation, unconstitutionally hindered the citizens' First Amendment right to free speech.  A key issue in the case was the 1976 case "Buckley v. Valeo", which many justices felt needed to be revisited.

Eight Magic Words: In "Buckley v. Valeo", the United States Supreme Court limited the reach of campaign finance laws to candidate and party committees, and other committees with a major purpose of electing candidates, or to speech that "expressly advocated" election or defeat of candidates.  In footnote 52 of that opinion, the Court listed eight words or phrases as illustrative of speech that qualified as "express advocacy".

Nixon v. Shrink Missouri Government PAC: Nixon v. Shrink Missouri Government PAC, 528 U.S. 377 (2000), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that their earlier decision in "Buckley v. Valeo", 424 U. S. 1 (1976) upholding federal limits on campaign contributions also applied to state limits on campaign contributions to state offices.

South Carolina v. Katzenbach: South Carolina v. Katzenbach, 383 U.S. 301 (1966) is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court rejected a challenge by the state of South Carolina to the preclearance provisions of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, which required that some states submit changes in election districts to the Attorney General of the United States (at the time, Nicholas Katzenbach).

Campaign finance reform in the United States: Although attempts to regulate campaign finance by legislation date back to 1867, the modern era of "campaign finance reform" in the United States begins with the passage of the Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA) of 1971 and, more importantly, 1974 amendments to that Act.  The 1971 FECA required candidates to disclose sources of campaign contributions and campaign expenditures.  The 1974 Amendments essentially rewrote the Act from top to bottom.  The 1974 Amendments placed statutory limits on contributions by individuals for the first time, and created the Federal Election Commission (FEC) as an independent enforcement agency.  It provided for broad new disclosure requirements, and limited the amounts that candidates could spend on their campaigns, or that citizens could spend separate from candidate campaigns to promote their political views.  Specifically, it attempted to restrict the influence of wealthy individuals by limiting individual donations to $1,000 and donations by political action committees (PACs) to $5,000.  However, the Act's provisions limiting expenditures were struck down as unconstitutional in the 1976 Supreme Court decision Buckley v. Valeo.

Buckley v. Valeo: Buckley v. Valeo, 424 US 1 (1976) is a US constitutional law Supreme Court case on campaign finance.  A majority of judges held that limits on election spending in the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 §608 are unconstitutional.  In a "per curiam" (by the Court) opinion, they ruled that expenditure limits contravene the First Amendment provision on freedom of speech because a restriction on spending for political communication necessarily reduces the quantity of expression.  It limited disclosure provisions and limited the Federal Election Commission's power.  Justice Byron White dissented in part and wrote that Congress had legitimately recognized unlimited election spending "as a mortal danger against which effective preventive and curative steps must be taken."

Supporting paragraphs: South Carolina v. Katzenbach Buckley v. Valeo
Answer: no