FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Vermont Republican State Committee Files Supreme Court Opening Brief on the Merits
The
Vermont
Republican
State
Committee
("VRSC")
filed
its
opening
Brief
for
Petitioners
today
in
the
United
States
Supreme
Court
case
of
Vermont
Republican
State
Committee,
et
al.
v.
Sorrell,
et
al.
(04-1530)
(consolidated
with
Randall
v.
Sorrell). VRSC
asked
the
Supreme
Court
to
strike
down
Vermont's
"laughably
low"
mandatory
candidate
expenditure
limits
and
Vermont's
$200-$400
contribution
limits,
the
lowest
in
the
Nation.
VRSC
filed
suit
in
federal
district
court
in
Vermont
over
five
years
ago
asking
that
the
above
statutes
be
declared
unconstitutional.
The
Second
Circuit
held
that
Vermont's
expenditure
limits
could
be
constitutional,
and
upheld
the
contribution
limits.
In
September
2005,
the
Supreme
Court
agreed
to
hear
all
three
issues
presented
by VRSC:
1)
whether
the
mandatory
candidate
expenditure
limits
violate
the
freedom
of
speech,
2)
whether
the
extraordinarily
low
contribution
limits
violate
the
freedoms
of
speech
and
association,
and
3)
whether
one
of
Vermont's
statutory
provisions
unconstitutionally
presumes
that
independent
expenditures
made
by
political
parties
and
committees,
if
they
benefit
fewer
than
six
candidates,
are
related
expenditures
subject
to
the
contribution
and
expenditure
limits.
James
Bopp,
Jr.,
lead
counsel
for
VRSC,
stated
that
"Vermont
adopted
these
'laughably
low'
expenditure
and
contribution
limits
with
the
express
purpose
of
forcing
a
reduction
in
overall
campaign
spending,
an
illegitimate
objective
under
the
First
Amendment.
These
provisions
have
the
effect
of
shielding
incumbents
from
challengers."
In
its
opening
brief
filed
today,
VRSC
argued
that
Supreme
Court
precedent
has
unwaveringly
held
for
almost
thirty
years
that
expenditure
limits
are
unconstitutional
because
they
impinge
on
the
First
Amendment
freedom
of
speech.
Bopp
pointed
out
that
"In
enacting
this
legislation,
what
Vermont
has
done
is
allow
the
press
and
independent
spenders
to
speak
without
limit
while
muzzling
candidates
from
speaking
about
their
own
campaigns
once
they
have
reached
their
expenditure
allowance.
The
electorate
has
a
right
to
hear
from
candidates
regarding
their
qualifications
and
positions
so
that
citizens
can
make
informed
voting
decisions."
Furthermore,
VRSC
also
argued
that,
even
in
the
unlikely
event
that
the
Supreme
Court
overturns
its
prior
decisions
holding
that
expenditure
limits
are
unconstitutional,
the
limits
are
set
far
too
low
to
allow
candidates
to
effectively
campaign.
"Candidates
should
not
become
bit
players
in
their
own
elections," Bopp
said.
In
addition,
VRSC
asked
the
Supreme
Court
to
strike
down
Vermont's
contribution
limits
because
they
are
too
low.
The
Supreme
Court
has
approved
contribution
limits
if
they
further
the
government's
interest
in
preventing
real
or
apparent
corruption
from
large
contributions.
Vermont's
contribution
limits
are
so
low
that
it
is
implausible
that
an
officeholder
would
sell
votes
or
even
give
preferential
access
for
a
mere
$200-$400
contribution. Bopp
stated,
"Vermont
has
prohibited
contributions
that
pose
no
danger
of
corruption.
If
they
are
upheld,
contribution
limits
will
be
stripped
of
their
traditional
First
Amendment
protection."
Moreover,
Vermont
failed
to
prove
that
its
interest
was
legitimate
since
it
did
not
bring
forth
any
specific
evidence
of
corruption
of
public
officials
in
Vermont.
VRSC
also
argued
that
the
contribution
limits
are
unconstitutional
because
they
are
so
low
that
they
do
not
allow
candidates
to
accumulate
the
resources
necessary
to
effectively
campaign.
The
contribution
limits
also
apply
to
parties
that
give
money
to
their
own
candidates.
These
limits,
in
one
expert's
words,
"essentially
abolish
political
parties
from
Vermont"
and
"subvert
basic
principles
of
democracy."
Finally,
Bopp
said.
"The
National
Voting
Rights
Institute,
a
key
supporter
of
Vermont's
law
and
lead
counsel
defending
it
for
the Intervenors,
has
as
its
primary
goal
the
abolition
of
private
funding
of
campaigns.
If
the
Supreme
Court
endorsed
their
broad
theories
used
to
defend
Vermont's
law,
government
could
abolish
outright
private
funding
of
campaigns."
The
case
will
be
argued
before
the
United
States
Supreme
Court
on
February
28,
2006.
The
ACLU,
lead
counsel
in
the
consolidated
case
of
Randall
v.
Sorrell,
also
filed
its
opening
brief
today.
Both
briefs
are
available
in
PDF
format
online
at
the
James
Madison
Center's
website,
www.jamesmadisoncenter.org
under
"Vermont
Campaign
Finance
Case."
James
Bopp,
Jr.
has
a
national
federal
and
state
election
law
practice.
He
is
General
Counsel
for
the
James
Madison
Center
for
Free
Speech.