Untitled Document
What’s New
On June 26, in a splintered 6 to 3 decision the U.S. Supreme Court struck down Vermont’s campaign spending limits law in the case, Randall v. Sorrell. In doing so, the justices reaffirmed a misguided 30 year old precedent that equates money with speech. The majority of justices rejected the arguments of reform advocates and the State of Vermont that runaway campaign spending undermines our democracy by favoring wealthy candidates and those with access to wealth, inviting corruption and turning our elected officials into full-time fundraisers. The Court’s ruling also discounts the overwhelming public support for campaign spending limits.
How You Can Help
Write your Senators and Congressman and urge them to take action to overturn the Court’s misguided ruling. Ask them to support a constitutional amendment to allow laws to rein in power and influence of big money in campaigns.
Summary
Campaign spending limits are a common sense solution to the problem of the increasing dominance of money in politics. Because of a wrongly decided case back in 1976 (Buckley v. Valeo) which equated money with speech, Congress and state governments have shied away from passing campaign spending limit laws as way to check runaway candidate fundraising. That was until the citizens of Vermont began seeing the cost of campaigns rise beyond what average citizens could afford to raise. They feared a legislature that would be overrun by handpicked representatives of powerful interests instead of people who accurately reflect the honest choices of the voters.
After passage in the late 1990s, Vermont’s campaign spending limits law was challenged in court. Vermont PIRG joined the State of Vermont to defend the law as it made its way through the court system. By the time the case reached the U.S. Supreme Court, supporters of the law included a bipartisan group of U.S. Senators and Representatives, 17 state Attorneys General, several state Secretaries of State, more than a dozen current and former judges, congressional candidates, and more than two dozen democracy reform and civil rights organizations.
Times have changed significantly since 1976 and the case for spending limits could not be stronger. In 1976 House candidates spent, on average, approximately $70,000 per campaign. Today, House candidates raise and spend more than $1 million. Without capping funds, the cost of campaigns will continue to rise rapidly further turning our elections into auctions to the highest bidder.
