The Supreme Court yesterday decided Randall v. Sorrell [pdf] and rejected Vermont's campaign finance law. First a little background.
Modern campaign finance reform started with the Federal Election Campaign Act in 1971, yep it was Nixon that signed it into law. In 1976 the Supreme Court ruled on it in Buckley v. Valeo. "The court in that case said contributions to candidates' campaigns could be capped without infringing freedom of speech but that spending could not be limited because it could improperly reduce discussion of key issues." Thomas and Scalia have wanted to overturn Buckley because they believe contributions and expenditures are both protected forms of speech and can't be limited and Kennedy mostly agrees with them.
In 1997, Vermont passed the nations strictest campaign finance law known as Act 64. It "stringently limits both the amounts that candidates for state office may spend on their campaigns and the amounts that individuals, organizations, and political parties may contribute to those campaigns".
The District Court say the expenditure limits were unconstitutional according to Buckley. They found most of the contribution limits ok, but not the ones to political parties. The 2nd Circuit Court on appeal found all the contribution limits were constitutional and the expenditure limits were constitutional as well.
Yesterday the Supreme Court overturned the decisions finding all the limits were unconstitutional. The expenditure ones because they conflict with Buckley and the contribution ones because they were too burdensome. This wasn't one of Robert's unanimous decisions. It was 6-3 and there were 6 opinions written.
Breyer in the plurality opinion found the Act 64 limits unconstitutional because:
1. Act 64's contribution limits will significantly restrict the amount of funding available for challengers to run competitive campaigns.
2. The amount political parties contributing to campaigns was the same $200-$400 (depending on the position) limit that individuals could contribute was too low and threatens harm to the right to associate in a political party. Previously the court upheld Federal limits but they were much higher.
3. Including volunteer's expenses was too limiting
4. The limits were not adjusted for inflation
5. There was no special justification for Act 64's low and restrictive contribution limits.
There are some significant parts to the decision. First off, the new justices, Roberts and Alito, found that at least some contribution limitations are constitutional, even though the VT ones were not. This means they don't agree with Scalia and Thomas on this issue.
Breyer and Roberts in the plurality decision cited stare decisis and not wanting to overturn a ruling that has worked well for 30 years. Alito went further and said the respondents didn't even make enough of a case for the court to consider stare decisis. Both Roberts and Alito during their confirmation spoke of believing in stare decisis and precedent and in this case they are doing just that.
The decision seems to give some additional consitutional protections to policitical parties because they facilitate association. Parties could use this in the future.
Thomas and Scalia agreed Act 64 was unconstitutional and wanted to overturn Buckley. They don't like that Justices are the one to decide that some amount is okay and some other amount is too limiting, particularly without a specific line. Kennedy also agreed that the Vermont law was unconstitutional, but thinks all these laws are probably unconstitutional and that warrants further examination.
On the dissenting side Souter and Ginsburg thought Vermont might have come up with a good reason for expenditure limits (to overcome fundraising demands on candidates) and didn't think the contribution limits were too low. Stevens agreed with them but went further and wanted to overturn Buckley's expenditure limits.
All in all, a pretty interesting decision.
No comments:
Post a Comment