Legal and Policy Experts Debate Campaign Spending Limits
All Sides Urge Supreme Court to Consider Issue This Term

WASHINGTON, D.C.—The U.S. Supreme Court should use the Vermont case Randell V. Sorrell to clarify the law on campaign spending limits, a broad spectrum of legal and policy experts asserted today.

The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit recently ruled that mandatory campaign expenditure limits may be constitutional, opening the door for spending limits in Vermont, Connecticut and New York.

Leading reformers such as the National Voting Rights Institute, the state Public Interest Research Groups (PIRGs), Common Cause, and TheRestofUs.org are urging the Court to use Randell to revisit Buckley v. Valeo, the 1976 case that struck federal spending limits and equated money with speech. Reform opponents, led by James Bopp, Jr. of the James Madison Center for Free Speech, are asking the Supreme Court to overrule the Second Circuit and strike Vermont’s Act 64.

"The Supreme Court now faces an historic opportunity," says Brenda Wright, managing attorney for the National Voting Rights Institute and lead counsel for the Vermont groups serving as defendant-intervenors. "For nearly three decades since the Buckley ruling, citizens have fought for accountable government with their strongest hand tied behind their backs. All the while, campaign spending has spiraled out of control, threatening the integrity of our democracy. The time has come to revisit that ruling based on the new facts and circumstances presented in the Vermont case." Wright debated Bopp over the constitutionality of campaign spending limits today at the Georgetown University Law Center.

The 2004 federal elections were the most expensive in history, with total candidate fundraising topping $2 billion. Reform advocates say the escalating cost of campaigns locks grassroots candidates out of the process and favors office-seekers with personal wealth or access to networks of wealthy donors.

“Reasonable spending limits can curb the fundraising arms race, level the playing field for grassroots candidates, and prevent the super-rich from buying elected office,” said Adam Lioz, Democracy Advocate for the state Public Interest Research Groups, including VPIRG which helped pass Act 64. “The people of Vermont have taken their Governorship, House, and Senate off the auction block. The courts shouldn’t put these state offices back on sale to the highest bidder.” Lioz debated John Lott of the American Enterprise Institute at today’s event.

Last month, a broad coalition of interested parties filed friend-of-the-court briefs urging the Supreme Court to grant review in Randell. Senator Jack Reed led a brief joined by a bipartisan group of eight U.S. Senators focused on protecting the public’s faith in their elected officials. Former U.S. Senators Bill Bradley and Alan Simpson emphasized the importance of preserving elected officials’ time. Thirteen state Attorneys General, led by Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut, urged the Court to settle the law. Three Secretaries of State urged autonomy for lead state elections officials. Elected judges stressed the integrity of judicial elections. Civil rights groups pointed to spending limits’ benefits for minority candidates. Eight leading campaign reform groups supported revisiting Buckley to open the door for spending limits nationwide.

The Vermont case is the third test case in the past decade to revisit the question of the constitutionality of mandatory campaign spending limits. In 1997, a federal appeals court in Cincinnati struck down such limits in Cincinnati's local elections, and last year, a federal appeals court in Denver struck down such limits in Albuquerque's local elections. The Second Circuit's ruling on Vermont's limits conflicts with those two prior rulings. The Supreme Court often decides to review cases in which the federal appeals courts are divided on a major constitutional question.

The two hour debate and forum on campaign spending limits took place in the Hotung International Building at the Georgetown University Law Center this morning at 10:30am. The first panel featured discussion of the policy merits of campaign expenditure limits; the second panel focused on their constitutionality.

For more information on the Vermont case, see www.buckbuckley.com.

The National Voting Rights Institute is a non-partisan, nonprofit organization that seeks fairness in the electoral process for all, regardless of income. The Boston-based organization pursues its mission through litigation and public education.

The state Public Interest Research Groups are a network of independent, state-based, citizen-funded organizations that advocate for the public interest using the time-tested tools of investigative research, media exposes, grassroots organizing, advocacy and litigation.

Common Cause is a nonpartisan nonprofit advocacy organization founded in 1970 by John Gardner as a vehicle for citizens to make their voices heard in the political process and to hold their elected leaders accountable to the public interest.