On January 30, 1976, the Supreme Court of the United States issued the infamous Buckley v. Valeo ruling that struck down campaign finance reforms intended to reduce the undue influence of wealthy interests on election outcomes. By wrongly equating big money in politics with free speech, the Court has blocked reforms to our electoral process that would let ordinary Americans determine who runs for office, who wins elections, and what issues dominate the agenda.
|
The Buck Buckley Campaign News
Release:
Court Says Campaign Spending Caps Can Be Constitutional: Case remanded for decision on the details of Vermont's law In a major decision in the fight against runaway campaign spending, the US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit today stated forcefully that campaign spending limits can be constitutional. The Court stated that Vermont has established two compelling governmental interests in support of its spending limits: "preventing the reality and appearance of corruption and protecting the time of candidates and elected officials." In its 2-to-1 decision involving Vermont's landmark campaign spending limits law, the Court referred the law back to the lower court to determine if there are any less restrictive means of achieving these goals, but stated that if the law meets the right conditions, it is constitutional. "This is a tremendous victory for democracy and for the people of Vermont," said Paul Burns, executive director of VPIRG. VPIRG was a major force behind the passage of the law in 1997 and is a formal intervenor in the litigation. "This decision makes clear that money is having a corrupting influence on elections in Vermont. The Court has also opened the door to spending caps as a way to solve that problem. I have no doubt that Vermont will soon become the first state in the nation to have spending caps for all state races. Today, too many politicians are forced to decide whether they'll spend their time dialing for dollars or listening to the concerns of real voters. The legislature recognized this problem when they passed Act 64 in 1997. Now we're one step away from implementing the solution identified by legislators in that law," Burns added. "We'll go back to court again, but this time the rules of the game have changed. For the first time ever, average voters will have the advantage over the special interests," concluded Burns. VPIRG is joined in defending Vermont's law by a number of individuals and organizations including the League of Women Voters of Vermont, Rural Vermont, Vermont Older Women's League and the Vermont Alliance of Conservation Voters. |
|
|