When it comes to politics, money talks. And that’s as it should be, the U.S. Supreme Court said June 26 in a decision that struck down Vermont’s limits on campaign contributions and spending.
The justices issued six separate opinions, but critics of the law persuaded a court majority that the First Amendment protects speech, especially political speech, and even very expensive political speech, from government restrictions.
In one of the concurring opinions, Justice Stephen Breyer said the majority found Vermont’s toughest-in-the-nation limitations on contributions and spending were unconstitutional.
“That is to say, they impose burdens upon First Amendment interests that (when viewed in light of the statute’s legitimate objectives) are disproportionately severe,” Justice Breyer wrote.
Vermont’s 1997 law placed a $300,000 spending cap on gubernatorial candidates and lesser limits for other state elections. Contributions were limited to as little as $200 per election cycle for state House races.
Money ‘buys influence’
Supporters of the law said it was designed to rein in what they see as the corrupting influence of money in politics. “Money buys access,” said Vermont Attorney General William Sorrell, who defended the state’s law in a Feb. 28 appearance at the high court. “And on bad days it buys influence.”
But Justice Breyer wrote that, “At some point, the constitutional risks to the democratic electoral process become too great.” Preventing corruption or its appearance is a noble goal, “yet that rationale does not simply mean ‘the lower the limit, the better.’”
Three lawsuits were filed challenging Vermont’s 1997 law by groups that included the Vermont Right to Life Committee, the Vermont Libertarian Party and the Vermont Republican State Committee.
Mary Hahn-Beerworth, executive director of Vermont Right to Life, said her group was especially opposed to a portion of the law governing independent expenditures. If those expenditures appeared to help a specific candidate, and it appeared to be coordinating with that candidate, the value of that help had to be deducted from the candidate’s spending total.
That provision “restricted us to communicating with our own members about who the pro-life candidates are,” Ms. Hahn-Beerworth said.
The court’s opinion did not overturn its last major campaign finance ruling, Buckley v. Valeo of 1976, despite the desire of Justices Anthony M. Kennedy, Clarence Thomas and Antonin Scalia to do so. That decision limited campaign contributions but not expenditures by candidates.
The upshot for the 2006 election cycle in Vermont appeared to be that there would be no limits on campaign spending or contributions, said Denise Casey, campaign manager for Republican Governor James Douglas. “There are no individual contribution limits and no cap on overall spending,” she said.
The spending caps had been removed by an earlier decision as the case made its way through the courts. Mr. Sorrell said his office was researching whether contribution limits in effect before the 1997 law of $2,000 per election cycle — $1,000 each in the primary and the general election — would be reinstated automatically.
Mr. Douglas said in an interview that he was “not surprised and generally pleased with the court’s decision.”
“I’ve always said that I would support reasonable limits on contributions,” the governor said. “But I really believe that the limits on spending were incumbent protection. …I look forward to working with the Legislature to find contribution limits that make sense for Vermont and enacting them during the next session.”
In federal races, where the state law never applied, both independent U.S. Rep. Bernard Sanders and self-funded Republican challenger Richard Tarrant already have shattered all previous records for money taken in and spent by campaigns — and Election Day is more than four months away.
“Vermont is going to get a good taste of what a lot of spending on campaigns is all about quite apart from this decision from the U.S. Supreme Court today,” Mr. Sorrell said.
Paul Burns, executive director of the Vermont Public Interest Research Group, said the Senate campaign provides a strong indication that campaigns for governor and other statewide offices soon could become financial arms races as well.
“It’s a dangerous thing for our democracy if you’re going to conclude that money equals speech, unless we all have equal access to money,” Mr. Burns said.
Peter Langrock, a lawyer for some of the groups opposed to the law, argued that “you cannot separate money from speech.” A candidate who had reached her limit couldn’t buy gasoline to go door-to-door, he said.
“If she’s spent her money, she can’t even go speak on the town green — unless she can bike there,” Mr. Langrock said.
Copyright 2006 Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.