Appeals court strikes down part of Vermont campaign finance law

The Associated Press

06.19.00

Printer-friendly page

NEW YORK — Acting on First Amendment grounds, a federal appeals court has decided that three sections of a new Vermont campaign finance law are too vague and otherwise poorly worded to be constitutional.

The ruling reinstates a challenge by the Vermont Right to Life Committee to a law Vermont enacted in 1997 to reform its system of campaign financing. The committee said fear of penalties had forced it to limit its activities.

The 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, in a 2-to-1 ruling dated Thursday, reversed a lower court judge who had tossed out a lawsuit the committee filed after the law took effect.

The committee had sought a court declaration barring enforcement of two parts of the law, which require political advertisements to disclose the identity of the entity paying for them and the candidate, party or political committee who will benefit.

It also had challenged a section of the law that requires reporting of expenditures on radio or television advertisements devoted to pure issue advocacy.

The appeals court said it did not matter that the Right to Life Committee could face only civil penalties rather than criminal punishment if the state concluded it had violated the new law.

"The fear of civil penalties can be as inhibiting of speech as can trepidation in the face of threatened criminal prosecution," the appeals court wrote.

It noted that the committee could be fined up to $10,000 for each violation of campaign finance law.

The committee had argued that it feared it was at risk for penalties because it does not comply with a campaign finance law requirement that political advertisements designate the name of the candidate, party or political committee on whose behalf they are published or broadcast.

The problem arises because the committee does not expressly advocate the election or defeat of particular candidates other than through its internal political committee, the appeals court said.

The appeals court, finding two parts of the new law "impermissibly vague," sympathized with the committee's fear that it would not know whether it was violating the law, especially when engaging in classic issue advocacy that might amount to an implicit endorsement of a candidate.

"The constitutional defects are particularly serious because of their impact on anonymous communications, which have played a central role in the development of free expression and democratic governance," the appeals court said.

The appeals court returned the case to the lower court for further proceedings.

In a dissenting opinion, Judge Milton I. Shadur said the lawsuit should have been brought in Vermont state court, which could have provided a definitive interpretation of the new law.