The Buck Buckley Campaign

News Release:

In the heat of the most expensive election ever…a campaign to put the brakes on the fundraising arms race…

UNPRECEDENTED COALITION OF PUBLIC INTEREST GROUPS LAUNCHES NATIONAL INITIATIVE TO LIMIT CAMPAIGN SPENDING

SEEKS SUPREME COURT HEARING TO UPHOLD CONSTITUTIONALITY OF CAMPAIGN SPENDING LIMITS IN VERMONT AND ALBUQUERQUE

NATION'S HIGHEST COURT SOON TO FACE HISTORIC OPPORTUNITY TO REVISIT ITS 1976 DECISION IN BUCKLEY v. VALEO

-- At Issue: Whether Campaign Spending Limits Are Necessary To Protect The Integrity Of Our Electoral Process --

WASHINGTON, DC-July 22, 2004 - An unprecedented coalition of public interest groups announced today the launch of a national campaign to press the United States Supreme Court to revisit the constitutionality of mandatory campaign spending limits. The announcement comes as attorneys prepare to file petitions before the nation's highest court for review of campaign spending limits in Vermont and Albuquerque, New Mexico.

Organizations spearheading this effort include the Boston-based National Voting Rights Institute (NVRI), Common Cause, U.S. PIRG, Brennan Center for Justice, Fannie Lou Hamer Project, Demos: A Network of Ideas & Action, Democracy Matters, TheRestofUs.org, Citizens for Responsibility & Ethics in Washington, and Public Campaign.

In the 1976 case, Buckley v. Valeo, the Supreme Court issued a ruling that equated money with speech and struck down congressional campaign spending limits on First Amendment grounds. The ruling effectively sanctioned today's system of unlimited campaign spending. Campaign finance experts say the 2004 elections promise to be the most expensive ever in U.S. history.

"The time has come to revisit Buckley v. Valeo," says Stuart Comstock-Gay, the executive director of NVRI, the organization that has led movement in the courts over the past decade to challenge the Buckley ruling. "The Supreme Court will soon face an historic opportunity to reconsider that ruling in light of new facts and circumstances. With this campaign, we will mobilize voices across the country calling for an end to the fundraising arms race in our elections."

The Vermont and Albuquerque cases have been pending in lower federal courts for the past several years. The Vermont case involves campaign spending limits for statewide and state legislative elections, and the Albuquerque case involves campaign spending limits for city elections. In April 2004, a federal appeals court in Santa Fe, New Mexico, struck down Albuquerque's campaign spending limits, applying the Buckley ruling. In August 2002, a federal appeals court in Manhattan issued a landmark ruling upholding Vermont's campaign spending limits, but then subsequently withdrew the ruling to make amendments to the opinion. That appeals court has yet to reissue a new ruling.

Attorneys at the National Voting Rights Institute will file by late September petitions for review before the Supreme Court in both cases. While the Albuquerque case has reached the Supreme Court stage following the April 2004 appeals court ruling, NVRI plans to file a petition seeking review of the Vermont case at the same time, under rules allowing Supreme Court review prior to final judgment by the federal appeals court in Manhattan. NVRI serves as special counsel for the City of Albuquerque in defense of its limits and as lead counsel for the "defendant-interveners" in defense of Vermont's limits.

"These cases have the potential to level the playing field for grassroots candidates and challengers and to forever change the landscape of our elections at the federal, state, and local level across the country," says Adam Lioz, Democracy Advocate for U.S. PIRG. "We are standing together today to urge the Supreme Court to accept these cases for review and to establish the principle that reasonable campaign spending limits enhance, rather than hinder, basic First Amendment values."

"Nearly thirty years of experience with the explosive costs of political campaigns in this country demonstrate that campaign spending limits are constitutionally justified," says Chellie Pingree, president of Common Cause. "The evidence in these cases show that campaign spending limits are necessary to protect the integrity of our electoral process."

The Buckley ruling remains one of the most controversial decisions of the modern Supreme Court era. In recent years, 26 state attorneys general and 21 secretaries of state have called for a revisitation of Buckley, as have 40 U.S. Senators and more than 200 constitutional scholars across the country.

The coalition of public interest groups says that, as part of its new campaign, it will generate friend-of-the-court briefs before the Supreme Court from prominent allies in support of the petitions for review in the Vermont and Albuquerque cases. The coalition will also work to mobilize public opinion in the coming weeks to underscore the importance of these cases for the health of American democracy.

For further information, visit www.buckbuckley.com and www.nvri.org.

- The 1976 Buckley Decision 

- Who is James Buckley?