Jun 26, 2006 -- Randall v. Sorrell: Statement of Trevor Potter, Campaign Legal Center President, on the High Court Decision

The Supreme Court decision today striking down Vermont's campaign spending and contribution limits was very narrowly focused and left three decades of Court doctrine on campaign finance law unchanged. With this decision, the constitutional doctrine remains that expenditure limits are unconstitutional unless voluntary, and that contribution limits may be unconstitutionally low if the evidence indicates they prevent candidates, especially challengers, from mounting competitive campaigns. The ruling stressed the importance of the Buckley v. Valeo decision both to the line of cases that have followed and as the principle guidepost to Congress and state legislatures in drafting campaign finance laws.

In addressing the specific issues with the Vermont legislation, the Court offers detailed guidelines for future legislative remedies to limit campaign contributions without violating the Constitution.

Relevant factors (the plurality opinion of the Court states that no one factor is dispositive) include:

• higher limits for statewide races than local or state house or senate races
• separate limits for primaries and general elections
• higher contribution limits for parties than for individuals
• inflation indexing, so that limits do not "creep down" over time
• an exemption for some expenditures by volunteers, as under federal law

# # #