FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
December 16, 2005
James Bopp, Jr.
Bopp, Coleson & Bostrom
812-232-2434 (office)
812-243-0825 (cell)
jboppjr@aol.com

Amici Support VRSC In Vermont Campaign Finance Challenge

This week several groups and individuals filed friend of the court briefs in support of the Vermont Republican State Committee ("VRSC") in the case of Vermont Republican State Committee, et al. v. Sorrell, et al. (04-1530) (consolidated with Randall v. Sorrell) in the United States Supreme Court. VRSC asked the Supreme Court to strike down Vermont's "laughably low" mandatory candidate expenditure limits and $200-$400 contribution limits.

An amicus curiae brief was filed by United States Senator Mitch McConnell by former United States Solicitor General Theodore Olson. Senator McConnell's four terms in the Senate and his role as Senate Majority Whip make him particularly well-suited to discuss campaign finance statutes. He noted that Vermont's expenditure and contribution limits entrench incumbents because challengers need additional funds to defeat sitting officeholders. "[M]oney often permits a challenger to overcome an incumbent's inherent advantages," as shown by recent average spending by candidates for Congressional office. In 2000, successful challengers for Senate spent an average of almost $9 million as opposed to successful incumbents who spent only $4.4 million on average. Successful challengers for House seats in 2000 spent over $2 million on average while successful incumbents spent on average less than $800,000. Successful challengers for both chambers spent more than the average expenditures by all winning candidates.

A multi-party brief was filed by The Center for Competitive Politics, The Cato Institute, The Goldwater Institute, The Institute for Justice, and The Reason Foundation. The groups explained that the consequences of upholding Vermont's expenditure limits "would be to enshrine monetary equality as a constitutional maxim and to subject all politics to government control. But such a result is neither wise nor necessary because money is not an illegitimate resource in the political marketplace, even where its deployment is not always equal." The brief noted that "[d]isparities in influence are an inherent result of freedom in both politics and the economy and cannot be eliminated without also eliminating the very freedom that makes them possible."

The Republican National Committee also filed an amicus brief, observing that the presumption of coordination, which presumes that an expenditure made by a political party or committee that benefits six or fewer candidates is related and subject to contribution and expenditure limits, "creates a prior restraint of speech that is impermissible under the First Amendment." Moreover, the presumption violates Due Process because the burden of persuasion is shifted from the government, where it belongs, to political parties and committees – "[T]he First Amendment places on the government the burden of persuasion to show that speech is protected."

The AFL-CIO, in its amicus curiae brief, challenged the presumption of coordination as well, explaining that "this is an issue of substantial importance in its own right, for its effect is to impose, incompatibly with the First Amendment, a risk on political committees and political parties that their speech undertaken independently of candidates will be subjected to governmental limits applicable only to contributions."

James Bopp, Jr., counsel for VRSC said: "The amici curiae briefs demonstrate that these issues are of utmost importance. The Supreme Court's decision in this case will determine the course of campaign finance in the future for the fifty states as well as for federal elections. Expenditure limits and low contribution limits prohibit candidates from speaking in their own campaigns, deprive the electorate from making informed voting decisions, and impose unconstitutional burdens on political parties and committees."

The amicus curiae 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.