The Buck Buckley Campaign

News Release:

In Landmark Ruling, Federal Appeals Court Rules That Campaign Spending Limits Can Be Constitutional

Ruling Revisits Supreme Court's 1976 Decision in Buckley v Valeo

"Reform Advocates Hail Ruling as a "Major Victory for Democracy"

NEW YORK, NY - A federal appeals court in Manhattan today issued a landmark ruling stating that mandatory campaign spending limits can be permitted under the United States Constitution. The ruling, which revisits a 1976 Supreme Court decision on the issue, sets the stage for dramatic changes in the financing of elections nationwide.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, in a closely-watched case coming from Vermont, ruled that the state has established two compelling governmental interests which justify its campaign spending limits: "preventing the reality and appearance of corruption and protecting the time of candidates and elected officials." The court, however, sent the case back to the district court to address the question of "whether there are less restrictive means" for Vermont to achieve these goals.

"This is a major victory for democracy," says Brenda Wright, managing attorney for the National Voting Rights Institute and lead counsel for a coalition of Vermont voters, candidates and public interest groups helping to defend the law. "For nearly thirty years, this country has witnessed how the endless chase for dollars turns our political campaigns into auctions and threatens the integrity of our elections. As a result of this ruling, we have a critical new tool for reducing the dominance of money in politics."

In powerful judicial language, the appeals court states: "Fundamentally, Vermont has shown that, without expenditure limits, its elected officials have been forced to provide privileged access to contributors in exchange for campaign money. Vermont's interest in ending this state of affairs is compelling: the basic democratic requirements of accessibility, and thus accountability, are imperiled when the time of public officials is dominated by those who pay for such access with campaign contributions."

The court also states: "Where access and influence can be bought, citizens are less willing to believe that the political system represents the electorate, exacerbating cynicism and weakening the legitimacy of government power…Certain private citizens and organizations should not be given greater access to public office holders - and thus greater influence - on account of those citizens' ability and willingness to pay for candidates' campaigns."

Today's ruling comes in the midst of what political observers say will be the most expensive election cycle in United States history, exceeding the record spending set in the 2000 elections. The ruling also comes as reform advocates argue that the Supreme Court should revisit its 1976 decision in Buckley v. Valeo, which struck down congressional campaign spending limits passed by Congress in the wake of the Watergate scandal.

In April 2004, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit struck down mandatory campaign spending limits for city elections in Albuquerque, New Mexico. That appeals court ruled that the Supreme Court's decision in Buckley had forever closed the door to the possibility of campaign spending limits being held as constitutional. In its ruling issued today, the federal appeals court for the Second Circuit expressly disagrees with the Tenth Circuit's ruling in the Albuquerque case.

Both the Vermont and Albuquerque rulings increase the likelihood that the Supreme Court will, in the near future, decide to review its decision in Buckley. In January 2000, four justices went on record stating that the time may have come to revisit that decision based on new facts and new governmental interests. Twenty-six state attorneys general and twenty-one 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 Second Circuit's ruling today marks the second time that the appeals court has issued a decision in the Vermont case. On August 7, 2002, the Second Circuit issued a ruling upholding Vermont's limits as constitutional. The appeals court subsequently withdrew that opinion in October 2002, to make amendments to the ruling, leading to today's decision.

The National Voting Rights Institute joined the Vermont Attorney General's office in defending Vermont's campaign spending limits. The Institute, along with Burlington attorney Peter Welch, represents the coalition of Vermont voters, candidates, and public interest organizations who support the limits, as well as the other provisions of the state's campaign finance reform law. The plaintiffs include the Vermont Right-to-Life Committee, the Vermont ACLU, and the Vermont Republican State Committee.

- The 1976 Buckley Decision 

- Who is James Buckley?