Vermont Expenditure and Contribution Limits Case Appealed to U.S. Supreme Court

The Vermont Republican Party asked the United States Supreme Court today to review Vermont's campaign finance law which imposes severe limits on contributions to and expenditures by candidates for state office in Vermont. The Vermont Republican Party, and several other Plaintiffs, asked the Supreme Court to reverse the Second Circuit's decision upholding Vermont's mandatory candidate expenditure limits and Vermont's contribution limits to candidates, which are the lowest in the Nation.

For the first time, a federal appeals court has suggested that mandatory candidate expenditure limits are constitutional, despite the 1976 U.S. Supreme Court decision in Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1 (1976), which struck down a similar federal law. The Second Circuit decision conflicts with the recent decisions of the Sixth and Tenth Circuits, both of which struck down mandatory candidate expenditure limits. Homans v. City of Albuquerque, 366 F.3d 900 (10th Cir. 2004); Kruse v. City of Cincinnati, 142 F.3d 907 (6th Cir. 1998).

The Vermont Republican Party also asked the Supreme Court to review Vermont's extremely low $200-$400 contribution limits. The Supreme Court has warned that contribution limits that are too low are unconstitutional. Justices Breyer and Ginsburg, as well as three other Justices, expressed the concern in a 2000 case that Missouri's contribution limit of $1,075 for statewide candidates might be too low. Nixon v. Shrink Missouri Gov't PAC, 528 U.S. 377, 404 (2000) (Breyer, J., concurring)

James Bopp, Jr., lead counsel for the Vermont Republican Party, said that "The Second Circuit has challenged the Supreme Court's authority by directly contradicting its thirty year record of holding expenditure limits unconstitutional." Furthermore, he said that "lower courts, since Shrink, have given the state legislatures carte blanche in setting contribution limits. The courts have misread Supreme Court precedent as saying 'anything goes.' However, contribution limits as low as Vermont's have nothing to do with preventing quid pro quo corruption, which is possible only with large contributions. This is likely the last opportunity the Court will have to say that some contribution limits are just too low to be constitutional."

"On the whole, the Vermont law is a direct assault on the freedom of speech of candidates for public office," said Bopp. "It threatens to make bit players of candidates in their own race by depriving them of the money needed to run an effective campaign. The Supreme Court should take this case to call a halt to such anti-democratic measures."

The opinion of the Second Circuit, Landell v. Sorrell, is reported at 382 F.3d 91 (2d Cir. 2004) and the appeal pleading in the Supreme Court are available from the James Madison Center for Free Speech at jamesmadisoncenter.org.