Federal appeals panel hears arguments on Vermont campaign-spending law

By The Associated Press

05.09.01

Printer-friendly page

NEW YORK — A federal appeals court panel heard arguments this week on the constitutionality of a Vermont law that limits campaign spending to as little as $2,000 for a legislative race.

Timothy Tomasi, assistant attorney general for Vermont, said the law was designed to free office holders to perform their official duties instead of raising money.

But James Bopp, a lawyer representing the Vermont Republican Party and other plaintiffs, said that if the campaign-spending limits were allowed to stand, "the heart of the First Amendment would be cut out."

The law, Act 64, passed by the Vermont Legislature in 1997, set mandatory spending limits for candidates — up to $300,000 for a gubernatorial race and as low as $2,000 for a state House of Representatives seat.

In a ruling last year, Judge William Sessions, of the U.S. District Court in Burlington, Vt., overturned the spending limits but upheld other portions of the law, including limits on individual contributions.

The state of Vermont appealed the ruling to the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New York.

Bopp told the three-judge panel that the spending limits would have "a dramatic adverse effect on the ability of candidates to mount effective campaigns."

But Brenda Wright, a lawyer with the National Voting Rights Institute, one of several groups supporting the state in its appeal, said testimony at the lower court demonstrated "that effective campaigns can still be run under these limits."

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 1976 in Buckley v. Valeo that campaign-spending limits are unconstitutional unless candidates accept public financing. Sessions indicated in his ruling that the Buckley decision might bear reconsideration.

"Given the wealth of evidence gathered by the Vermont Legislature in the process of evaluating Act 64, this court understands why it included spending limits as part of its comprehensive campaign finance bill," he wrote.

At a hearing May 7, Judge Rosemary Pooler asked the plaintiffs' lawyers whether the decision in Buckley had had the desired effect of stimulating robust political debate and voter participation.

"What we have since Buckley is a history of fewer and fewer people participating," she said.

Outside the courtroom, Tomasi said, "What the Vermont Legislature was trying to do was take money out of the process and make elections more about citizen involvement and substantive issues."

But Bopp called the law "the most Draconian reduction in political speech by candidates and parties ever adopted."

The judges are expected to rule later this year.

Update

Vermont can limit candidate spending, federal court rules
'The heart of the First Amendment, which protects the right to engage in political speech, has now been deprived by a court,' says lawyer opposed to law that appeals court upheld.  08.08.02

Related

Appeals court strikes down part of Vermont campaign finance law
Judges throw out three sections of 1997 legislation, citing constitutional defects such as 'impermissibly vague' wording.  06.19.00

Judge rejects anti-abortion group's challenge of Vermont campaign law
But federal court finds law should be changed to apply only when groups expressly support a specific candidate.  09.10.98