PRESS RELEASE
Tuesday, September 27, 2005
Contact: James Bopp, Jr.
Phone: 812-232-2434; Fax 812-235-3685
jboppjr@aol.com

Vermont Republican State Committee v. Sorrell, No. 04-1530  

Vermont law imposes extremely low contribution limits and mandatory expenditure limits on candidates for state office in Vermont. The Chief Judge of the Second Circuit described the contribution and expenditure limits as "laughably low," and they were intended to drain candidates' campaign of financial resources. "These extremely low contribution and expenditure limits will have the effect of making candidates bit players in their own elections," said James Bopp Jr, lead counsel for the Vermont Republican Party.  

The Second Circuit ruled that mandatory candidate expenditure limits could be constitutional, in spite of almost thirty years of federal precedent striking down similar laws. The U.S. Supreme Court held in Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1 (1976), that there are no compelling interests that can justify candidate expenditure limits, and that such limits impose unconstitutional restraints on the freedom of speech of candidates for public office. All other lower courts have followed this Supreme Court's holding, including recently the Sixth and Tenth Circuits.  

The Vermont expenditure limits for governor, for instance, is $300,000 during a two-year election cycle. This amount is radically lower than recent campaign spending for statewide office: James Douglas spent $1.1 million dollars in his 2002 race for Vermont Governor, James Jefford spent almost $3 million dollars in his 2000 Senatorial race, and Bernard Sanders spent over $800,000 in his race for U.S. Representative for Vermont in 2004.  

The Second Circuit also upheld contribution limits to state candidates of $200 to $400 per election cycle, the lowest limits in the Nation. No other federal court has upheld limits so low, because such paltry amounts are wholly unrelated to preventing quid pro quo corruption. The Supreme Court has also admonished that too-low contribution limits are unconstitutional. In a 2000 Supreme Court contribution limits case, Justices Breyer and Ginsburg cautioned that contribution limits that are too low can prevent effective campaigns and can serve to protect incumbents from challenge. Nixon v. Shrink Missouri Gov't PAC, 528 U.S. 377, 404 (2000) (Breyer, J. concurring). In that case, Justice Breyer noted that a $1,075 per election contribution limit ($2,150 per election cycle) was "low enough to raise such a question." Id. If limiting candidates to $2,150 per election cycle raises disturbing questions, the limits in Vermont, which are less than one fifth that amount, must be unconstitutional. 

"We are extremely pleased that the Supreme Court has agreed to review the Second Circuit's unprecedented decision upholding expenditure limits and their very low contribution limits," said Bopp. "Vermont has launched a direct assault against candidates' rights of free speech, while leaving interest groups and the press free to spend unlimited amounts in elections. Such a scheme makes candidates bit players in their own elections and thwarts democracy."  

Wisconsin Right to Life v. Federal Election Commission, No. 04-1581

The U.S. Supreme Court has also agreed to hear Wisconsin Right to Life v. FEC, which challenges the federal prohibition on corporate electioneering  communications, contained in the McCain-Feingold law, as applied to authentic grass-roots lobbying by a non-profit group. An electioneering communication is a targeted broadcast communication identifying a federal candidate during blackout periods before elections.  

The three-judge district court held that the Supreme Court's decision in McConnell v. FEC (upholding the electioneering communication prohibition against a facial constitutional challenge) precluded all as-applied challenges to the prohibition. It also held that, if facial challenges are permitted, the prohibition was constitutional as applied to Wisconsin Right to Life's proposed grass-roots lobbying advertising. Thus, there are two issues in this case: (1) whether McConnell precluded all as-applied challenges to McCain-Feingold's electioneering communication prohibition, and (2) whether an exception to the prohibition is constitutionally required for WRTL's grass-roots lobbying ads.  

WRTL's grass-roots lobbying ads began in the summer of 2004 and urged Senators Kohl and Feingold not to support upcoming filibusters of President Bush's judicial nominees. The ads were banned, however, beginning in mid-August, because Senator Feingold was a candidate in the 2004 September primary and general election. WRTL filed suit in D.C. District Court seeking injunctive relief to continue running them. 

The ads were genuine grass-roots lobbying ads, urging both of Wisconsin's U.S. Senators to oppose filibusters of President Bush's judicial nominees. The filibusters were at the time reaching unprecedented frequency. The broadcast ads did not state either Senator's position on the filibusters, nor their political affiliation, nor any words supporting or opposing either Senator and made no reference to the upcoming election. The ads did oppose the filibusters and urge constituents to call their Senators and ask them to oppose the filibusters.  

James Bopp, Jr., lead counsel for WRTL, comments: "The Court's decision to accept the case on both issues is very positive, indicating that the Court is willing to seriously consider whether campaign finance laws can be used to insulate federal candidates from genuine grass-roots lobbying about upcoming votes in Congress."  

The Second Circuit opinion, Landell v. Sorrell, is reported at 382 F.3d 91 (2d Cir. 2004). And Wisconsin Right to Life v. FEC decision is unpublished. The Supreme Court appeal pleadings may be found on the James Madison Center for Free Speech website at jamesmadisoncenter.org.