burlingtonfreepress.com

Sponsored by:

vt.Buzz ~ a political blog

Political notes from Free Press staff writers Terri Hallenbeck, Sam Hemingway and Nancy Remsen


6.26.2006

 

Court rules

On the last Monday before the U.S. Supreme Court's session ends, the panel finally issued a decision on Vermont's 1997 campaign finance law this morning. The ruling: The Law is too restrictive.

Attorney General Bill Sorrell learned the bad news about his case in defense of the law while on an out-of-state trip. He was still gathering the details late this morning.

For Peter Langrock, the Middlebury attorney who represented the Vermont Libertarian Party, the results were good news. He, too, was still taking in the details. After all, the justices produced six separate opinions on the case.

For a report on the decision and the reaction, check Tuesday's Burlington Free Press.

_ Terri Hallenbeck

Comments:
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
 
Thanks for embracing the Internet & starting a blog :)

The Vermont Libertarian Party, one of the parties involved with the case, now has a press release available, which also includes audio commentary from our state chair, Hardy Machia, about the decision. For more info, click the link above.
 
There also was a great My Turn in yesterday's Free Press:


Court sides with freedom of speech

June 28, 2006
There has been a lot of teeth-gnashing over the spending in politics, but let's hold on here.

Vermont's campaign finance law that the U.S. Supreme Court rejected Monday was a classic case of good intentions coming in direct conflict with the cornerstone of the Constitution: the First Amendment.

In any competition with the First Amendment, the victor must be this protector of our rights. The First Amendment must be upheld.

The U.S. Supreme Court did that Monday when it struck down parts of Vermont's 1997 campaign finance law -- a law that sought to put limits on campaign spending in state races but also put limits on freedom of speech.

The Vermont law sought to cap spending for the gubernatorial race at $300,000 and $2,000 for state representatives while contributions to state campaigns would be limited to as low as $200 per election for representatives of the House. The goal was to set the nation's strictest spending limits in an effort to keep deep-pocketed contributors out and the political process clean. This is a worthy goal.

But as Justice Stephen Breyer noted in his decision, although the Vermont law's objectives were legitimate, the law was so restrictive that it could become an obstacle "to the very electoral fairness it seeks to promote."

Perhaps most interesting in this exercise was that Breyer noticed an absence of graft and corruption that the Vermont law would try to rectify.

As the justice pointed out, there was no context for the law. He wrote that Vermont Attorney General William Sorrell, who argued in favor of the law, had not shown "any dramatic increase in corruption or its appearances in Vermont."

It's a good point. You create laws not necessarily to anticipate a problem but to deal with a problem. If there had been a serious problem with campaign spending involving graft in Vermont, then the attorney general would have had a busy time prosecuting. He hasn't.

The worst problem we've had with graft accusations lately has been a sheriff in Windham County who was accused of using public money to buy a banjo, among other things.

This law doesn't fit in Vermont. It doesn't fit in any state, for when we corral the right of speech -- and sometimes it costs money to talk -- we cut away at our most basic freedom.

The First Amendment has to take precedence.
 
Post a Comment



<< Home

Recent Posts

Recent Comments

Archives

June 2006   July 2006   August 2006   September 2006   October 2006   November 2006   December 2006   January 2007   February 2007   March 2007   April 2007   May 2007   June 2007   July 2007   August 2007   September 2007   October 2007   November 2007   December 2007   January 2008   February 2008   March 2008   April 2008   May 2008   June 2008   July 2008   August 2008   September 2008   October 2008   November 2008   December 2008   January 2009   February 2009   March 2009   April 2009   May 2009   June 2009   July 2009   August 2009   September 2009   October 2009   November 2009   December 2009   January 2010   February 2010   March 2010   April 2010