Supreme Court Rejects Campaign Finance Limits

The Supreme Court dealt a defeat Monday to liberal reformers who sought to limit sharply 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 money candidates for state office can spend on their campaigns, as well as how much donors can give them.

Had the law been upheld, reformers saw it as a model for other states to limit campaign spending. Instead, the justices said the law violated the 1st Amendment’s guarantee of freedom of speech.

Thirty years ago, the Supreme Court adopted the view that money is speech and required the government to tread cautiously when it limits the funding of political campaigns. The 1976 ruling in Buckley vs. 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, for example, individuals may give no more than $2,000 to candidates in federal races 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; 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 former Gov. Howard Dean, hoped to set a precedent that could rid states of expensive 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.

They also proposed that donors could give no more than $400 to any candidate for a 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.

Breyer called the limits absurdly low and said they would prevent challengers from mounting effective campaigns against incumbents. These limits “would reduce the voice of the political parties in Vermont to a whisper,” he said in the case of Randall vs. Sorrell.

Mandatory spending limits have never been upheld, he noted, because they clearly violate the free-speech rights of the candidate. Legal experts said Monday’s opinion did not appear to change the law in any significant way.

But sharp differences remain. Justices Clarence Thomas and Antonin Scalia said they would strike down part of the Buckley ruling and give contributors a free-speech right to donate as much money as they would like to a candidate. Justice Anthony M. Kennedy said he remained skeptical of the court’s approach to campaign funding laws.

All three voted to strike down the Vermont law.

From the opposite direction, Justice John Paul Stevens said he would overrule the part of the Buckley decision that stands in the way of spending limits.

Justice David H. Souter, a New Hampshire native, said he would uphold Vermont’s effort to restore grass-roots democracy. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg joined his dissent.

The Vermont law had been defended by a coalition of liberal reform groups, led by the Boston-based National Voting Rights Institute and the Washington-based Common Cause. Stuart Comstock-Gay, the voting-rights institute’s executive director, said Monday’s decision “marks a lost opportunity to end the arms race for campaign cash.”

The Republican Party, the National Right to Life Committee and the American Civil Liberties Union led the challenge to the Vermont law.

Despite Monday’s ruling, reformers remain free to seek public funding of campaigns or voluntary agreements in which candidates would limit their spending in exchange for some public funds.

In Los Angeles, officials and activists said the ruling will not stand in the way of a drive to expand public financing of city campaigns. Those who accepted the public funding would have to abide by strict contribution and spending limits.

A statewide initiative to create a public financing system and strictly limit the size of campaign donations qualified for the November ballot on Monday.

The measure, sponsored by the California Nurses Assn., would cap donations at $500 for candidates of local legislative races and $1,000 for candidates of statewide elections. Individual donors would be limited to giving no more than $15,000 annually.

Current state law generally caps single donations at $3,300 to candidates of local elections and $22,300 to gubernatorial candidates.

Times staff writers Steve Hymon in Los Angeles and Dan Morain in Sacramento contributed to this report.

*

(BEGIN TEXT OF INFOBOX)

High court’s high season

The Supreme Court is issuing a flurry of decisions this week as it prepares for its summer recess. On Monday, the justices:

* Agreed to rule on whether emissions from new cars, trucks and power plants need more regulation to slow climate change.

* Ruled that Vermont’s limits on contributions and spending in political campaigns improperly hindered the ability of candidates to raise money and speak to voters.

* Ruled Kansas’ death penalty law does not violate the Constitution’s ban on cruel and unusual punishment.

* Refused to decide whether the granddaughter of A.A. Milne, creator of Winnie the Pooh, can recapture control of the copyright for stories featuring the children’s character.

* Refused to consider appeals from abortion rights groups that wanted to block states from issuing car license plates bearing the message, “Choose Life.”

* Refused to hear an appeal of a drug patent case that antitrust officials hoped would speed access to cheaper generic versions.

* Ruled defendants are automatically entitled to a new trial if their choice of a privately retained lawyer is wrongly blocked.

Source: Times Staff and Wire Reports