June 27, 2006
Private: Court Invalidates Vermont Campaign Finance Law
In a 6-3 ruling, featuring six different opinions, the Supreme Court ruled on Monday to strike down Vermont's campaign finance law in Randall v. Sorrell. The law, which significantly limited contributions and spending in state-level races, challenged the regime created in Buckley v. Valeo. Justice Breyer, writing for the court and joined by Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Alito, distinguished the Vermont contribution limits from those recently upheld by the courts, saying they were not "closely drawn" to serve the state's interests. Justices Kennedy, Thomas, and Scalia concurred in the judgment. For a news overview of the decision, click here. For the text of the opinion, click here.
The splintered ruling has key implications for campaign finance law. As NYU Professor Richard Pildes points out, although the Court holds that the First Amendment protects campaign spending, no such protection is exists for contributions (Vermont's limits are held unconstitutional because they disrupt the election process). Richard Briffault also emphasizes the continued permissibility of contribution limits and notes the further muddling of campaign finance law. Rick Hasen describes Breyer's and Roberts' opinions as strategic and suggests that the decision would make future challenges to contribution limits inevitable.