Supreme Court to reconsider campaign spending limits

[garybeck]

looks like Mr. Alito is going to be busy addressing election reform.



Campaign Spending Limits in the U.S. Supreme Court

The U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to review the constitutionality of Vermont's limits on campaign spending, setting the stage for a possible sea change in the way American political campaigns are financed. The case will give the Court an opportunity to revisit its 1976 decision in Buckley v. Valeo, which struck down congressional spending limits on First Amendment grounds.

The Court is scheduled to hear oral arguments for Randall v. Sorrell, No. 04-1528, on February 28, 2006. This case raises issues that go to the heart of our democracy. Vermont's comprehensive campaign finance reform law was adopted in 1997 out of concern that the escalating arms race in campaign fundraising and spending has undermined public confidence in government and turned elected officials into full-time fundraisers. Among the many provisions of Vermont's law are limits on how much candidates for state offices may spend.

--

from VPIRG (Vermont Public Interest Research Group):

Later this month VPIRG's attorneys will join VT Attorney General William Sorrell at the US Supreme Court in Washington, DC to defend Vermont's landmark campaign finance law. We're defending the law against a legal attack brought by the VT Republican Party and the VT Right to Life Committee, among others.

Vermont's law is the most compelling solution to the increasing problem of money in American politics that this nation has seen in nearly 30 years. The 1976 Supreme Court decision Buckley v. Valeo - which wrongly equated money with speech - caused most lawmakers to shy away from enacting campaign spending limits. But VPIRG helped to pass Vermont's spending limits law in 1997, and now our case gives the entire nation a chance to benefit from the Court's reconsideration of Buckley.

--

http://www.nvri.org/campaignspending/index.html

[GuvWurld]

1. This is one of many issues these days that carries the potential

opportunity to lay bare the myth of democracy in America. That means it is a possible flashpoint for the peaceful revolution.

[garybeck]

2. campaign contributions = free speech????

it's my understanding that this case involves reconsidering the previous ruling that determined campaign contributions are a form of free speech.

IMHO it's ludicrous to call it free speech because if that were the case, people with more money have a louder voice. The thing about free speech is that everyone has a voice, not just the rich people. However I doubt the fascists on the court will see it that way.

[GuvWurld]

3. Agreed.

We're more like one dollar one vote than one person one vote. Of course vote should really be "vote" because it is a charade. It is very important that we ultimately disconnect the equation money=speech. It is very strongly connected to the idea of corporate personhood. The great line about CP that I like:

Slavery is the legal fiction that a person is property; corporate personhood is the legal fiction that property is a person.

Money does not equal speech. Corporations are not people...PeriodPeriodPeriod

[FogerRox]

4. good turn of phrase/Frame

Slavery is the legal fiction that a person is property; corporate personhood is the legal fiction that property is a person.

[Amaryllis]

5. Saw this one coming...when you get judges who always rule in favor of

corporations.