With political scandals rampant in Washington, D.C. and the states, the U.S. Supreme Court is set to rule this month on the constitutionality of provisions of a 1997 Vermont law that cap overall spending on candidate campaigns and tighten the state’s contribution limits. The ruling could mark a huge step forward or a significant step backward for campaign finance law, with widespread implications throughout the nation.
Since the Supreme Court struck federal spending limits in the 1976 case Buckley v. Valeo, most jurisdictions have assumed that spending limits are always unconstitutional. But, in a landmark ruling the 2nd Circuit recently declared that spending caps can be permitted in the right circumstances. A Supreme Court ruling affirming this interpretation would open the door for spending limits nationwide—and put a critical weapon back in the arsenal of citizens fighting for accountable government.
The Supreme Court put contribution limits on firm constitutional ground in cases in 2000 and 2003—but the new Roberts Court may role back this important precedent. A ruling striking Vermont’s new lower limits would reverse the trend of granting states broad deference to set specific limit dollar amounts; open state contribution limit laws across the nation to legal challenge; and put courts back in the business of micromanaging state and local campaign finance law. TheRestOfUs.org submitted an amicus brief that U.S. PIRG signed onto, and Vermont PIRG (VPIRG) also submitted a brief as an intervener. The case is Randall v. Sorrell and a decision is expected by the end of June.
Contacts: Adam Lioz, U.S. PIRG Democracy Advocate, 202-546-9707, alioz@pirg.org, www.uspirg.org; Derek Cressman, Director of therestus.org. State PIRGs’ Democracy Program Director, 916-448-4516, Derek@therestofus.org, www.therestofus.org.
