A Good Quarrel: America's Top Legal Reporters Share Stories from Inside the Supreme Court

Randall v. Sorrell: Arguing over Campaign Finance in Vermont

Randall v. Sorrell Arguing over Campaign Finance in Vermont argued february 28, 2006 brent kendall In 1997, Vermont passed a campaign ‹nance law, Act 64, that imposed strict limits both on expenditures by candidates for of‹ce during the election cycle and on the contributions of individuals, political groups, and parties. Neil Randall, a state legislator, sued Vermont attorney general William Sorrell, arguing that the limits unconstitutionally infringed on First Amendment freedom of speech. In Randall’s view, the Supreme Court had declared all expenditure limits unconstitutional in Buckley v. Valeo (1976), and Act 64’s contribution limits were unconstitutionally low. The district court struck down the expenditure limits but upheld most of the contribution limits. Only contribution limits on political parties—under which national, state, and local parties together could give only four hundred dollars to a statewide candidate—were unconstitutionally low. Both parties appealed the ruling to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. The circuit court reversed, ruling that all of Vermont’s contribution limits were constitutional. The Second Circuit also found that the expenditure limits would be constitutional as long as they were “narrowly tailored” to the state’s interests.| 145 To listen to passages from oral arguments indicated with , visit www.goodquarrel.com. ;)) when vermont’s legislators passed a controversial 1997 law that brought sweeping reforms to the state’s campaign ‹nance system , they knew they were testing some long-standing legal boundaries. Not only was the state planning to place very strict limits on the amount of money that citizens and political parties could donate to candidates running for of‹ce, Vermont also wanted to limit the amount of money candidates could spend on their campaigns, a proposal that ran headlong into the U.S. Supreme Court’s thirty-year-old landmark ruling in Buckley v. Valeo,1 which struck down campaign spending limits as an unconstitutional restriction on speech. The law’s backers, however, said that the current political landscape bore little resemblance to that of the Buckley era. The costs of mounting effective political campaigns had skyrocketed. Well-funded special interests were ever more in›uential in the legislative process. Nothing less than the public’s faith in government was at stake. The reforms, lawmakers said, were necessary to prevent real and perceived corruption and to remove the incessant time demands of unlimited fund-raising so that legislators could refocus their attention where it belonged: on running the government. Future presidential candidate Howard Dean, Vermont’s governor at the time, enthusiastically signed the reforms into law. “Money does buy access, and we’re kidding ourselves and Vermonters if we deny it,” Dean said in his 1997 inaugural address, a speech that helped prompt the reforms. The Second Circuit’s opinion in this case even quoted Dean’s remark.2 Vermont’s position as the vanguard of the campaign-‹nance reform movement was unusual, to say the least, given that the state was one of the cheapest in which to run for of‹ce. The state ranked forty-ninth in spending for gubernatorial campaigns. Its statewide population was smaller than that of a single State Senate district in California. Television and newspaper advertising came at bargain prices. Consequently, Vermont set its spending and contribution limits at levels that would be unthinkably low in other states.| a good quarrel 146 1. 424 U.S. 1 (1976). 2. 382 F.3d 91, 2nd Cir. (2004). Candidates for governor could spend no more than three hundred thousand dollars on their campaigns. The limits decreased steadily for down-ticket political races, bottoming out at four thousand dollars and two thousand dollars for State Senate and State House contests, respectively , sums small enough that the average Vermonter could sell a beatup used car and ‹nance his or her entire campaign without worrying about being outspent by candidates with bigger war chests. As for the state’s new contribution limits, candidates for statewide of‹ce could accept no more than four hundred dollars from a single donor or political committee. The same caps even applied to contributions that candidates received from their political parties. Again, the limits were even lower for down-ticket races. A candidate for state representative or a local of‹ce could accept no individual contribution larger than two hundred dollars. The law’s supporters said Vermont’s low contribution limits—the lowest in the nation—weeded out only “suspiciously large...