Supreme Court Strikes Down Campaign Funding Law
This week, the U.S. Supreme Court, on a 5-4 vote in a case entitled Randall v. Sorrell, struck down as unconstitutional a Vermont law which limited contributions and spending in political campaigns.
A majority of the justices agreed on the result, but were unable to harmonize on the analysis, with only four of them signing onto the plurality opinion written by Justice Breyer.
The law placed a $300,000 spending cap on gubernatorial campaigns, and lesser limits on campaigns for other state offices. Donations were limited, as well, with a maximum of $200 for state house of representatives races.
In his order, Justice Breyer said that Vermont’s law was so strict, especially on contributions, that it could “prove an obstacle to the very electoral fairness it seeks to promote”.
The Court declined to overturn its 1976 ruling in Buckley v. Valeo, in which it had held that campaign contributions could be capped, but limiting spending could not because it might improperly reduce discussion of issues.
The challenge to the Vermont law was brought by the Vermont Right to Life Committee, the Vermont Libertarian Party, and the Vermont Republican party.
Although the decision is limited to the state law in question, it also creates legal precedent which does not bode well for other attempts to regulate campaign contributions and spending. It might take a constitutional amendment to fully allow such laws.
With all the talk of proposed constitutional amendments on various subjects through the years, from flag burning, to abortion, to immigration, I find it interesting that no politician has ever proposed the single most important one in terms of our democracy – an amendment to authorize laws that regulate campaign contributions and spending.