Campaign reform law struck down

WASHINGTON – The Supreme Court dealt a defeat Monday to liberal reformers who sought to sharply limit the impact of money in politics.

In a 6-3 decision, the court struck down a novel Vermont law that would have strictly limited how much state candidates can spend on their campaigns, as well as how much contributors can give them.

Had the law been upheld, these reformers saw it as a model for other states to limit campaign spending. Instead, the justices said the law violated the First Amendment and its guarantee of freedom of speech.

Thirty years ago, the court adopted the view that money is a form of speech and required the government to tread cautiously when it limits the funding of political campaigns. The 1976 ruling in Buckley v. Valeo upheld what were deemed to be reasonable federal limits on contributions to candidates, but struck down limits on how much candidates could spend.

Currently, individuals may give no more than $2,000 to federal candidates during an election cycle, but the candidates may spend as much as they can raise.

That two-part standard has remained the law ever since, and it was upheld again Monday – despite dissents from the court’s liberal and conservative wings.

Justice Stephen G. Breyer, a Clinton appointee, spoke for the court in striking down the Vermont law, and he was joined by the two new Bush appointees: Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. They described the Buckley decision as a well-established precedent.

Vermont’s politicians, including then-Gov. Howard Dean, hoped to set a new precedent that could rid states of big-money ad campaigns. They proposed that candidates for governor be limited to spending no more than $300,000 on their campaigns, while state senators would be limited to only $4,000.

Donors could give no more than $400 to any candidate for statewide office, such as the governor. Limits for legislators were lower: only $200 per person could be given to a candidate seeking election as a state representative.

Due to legal challenges, these limits had not gone into effect.