Expert: Michael Troy - 3/18/2006

Question
Michael,
I am in dire need of your assistance.  I am currently in a Political Science class and we are simulating real court cases.  I am an attorney for Randall in Randall v. Sorrell.  Can you help with any helpful points that can help our team.  The question is whether Vermonts spending limits violate the 1st Amendment.  Any help would be appreciated.
Aron

Answer
Hi Aron,

Fortunately, someone has already done the work for you.  All of the actual briefs for both parties are available online and available for viewing.  Also available are the lower court decisions.  You can view them at:

http://www.jamesmadisoncenter.org/

Just click on the link for "Vermont Campaign Finance Case"

The basic argument is this.  The Supreme Court has never allowed limits on campaign expenditures.  Such restrictions on a candidate's ability to present his/her message is a clear violation of free speech.  Regulating political debate is the core of what the First Amendment was designed to prevent.  While the Court has allowed restrictions on contributions to candidates, that is only to prevent corruption or the appearance of corruption, i.e. that the candidate would appear to be dependent on an individual or small group and would do their bidding once elected.  There is no such worry if money is collected from a large group of people in small contributions or if the candidate is independently wealthy.  Therefore, there is no legitimate government purpose for expenditure limits.

If you have any specific questions about anything in any of the cases or briefs, feel free to send a follow-up.

- Mike