Vermont Right to Life plays role in striking down Vermont’s campaign finance scheme.
By Sharon Toborg

On June 27, 2006, the US Supreme Court held  in Randall v. Sorrell that Vermont’s draconian campaign finance scheme, which includes extremely low contribution limits and mandatory expenditure limits, is unconstitutional. "Today’s decision effectively reinvigorates application of the First Amendment to campaign finance laws," stated James Bopp, Jr., lead counsel for the Vermont Right to Life Political Committee, who argued the case in the Supreme Court for the plaintiffs.

The Court struck down the contribution limits to state candidates of $200 to $400 per election cycle, the lowest limits in the Nation. The limits were struck because they were so low that they prevented candidates from amassing the resources necessary to mount effective campaigns. In its opinion, the Supreme Court reaffirmed its admonishment to legislatures that contribution limits that are too low can prevent effective campaigns and can serve to protect incumbents from challenge. Nixon v. Shrink Missouri Gov’t PAC, 528 U.S. 377, 404 (2000) (Breyer, J. concurring). The Court also found that the same $200 to $400 limits on contributions from political parties to candidates are unconstitutional, stating that the limits would "reduce the voice of political parties in Vermont to a whisper." "Today’s opinion means that any contribution limits under $1000 are in serious constitutional jeopardy," cautioned James Bopp, Jr.

The Court also held that Vermont’s expenditure limits are unconstitutional, thereby adhering to its decision in Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1 (1976), that such limits impose unconstitutional restraints on the freedom of speech of candidates for public office. Act 64 imposed the following mandatory spending limits on candidates: $300,000 for governor, $100,000 for lieutenant governor, $45,000 for other statewide offices, $4,000 for state senator (plus an additional $2,500 for each additional seat in the same senate district), and $2,000 for a single member and $3,000 for a two member house district. Bopp was not surprised by the Court’s ruling: "Expenditure limits are fundamentally incompatible with the First Amendment, which cannot permit states to limit what candidates spend from lawfully raised funds to speak on behalf of their own campaigns." Added Bopp.  "This decision shuts the door on expenditure limits under the First Amendment."

Sharon F. Toborg, who provided testimony in the appeals court on behalf of VRLC’s political committees, was delighted with the high court’s decision.

"The Supreme Court's decision ratifies what the Vermont Right to Life Committee has said since the 1998 law was enacted: that preventing our organization from communicating with our own members about candidates' positions on pro-life issues violates the First Amendment and is an affront to the democratic process," stated Toborg, Treasurer of VRLC Political Committees.  "The state wasted hundreds of thousands of tax dollars trying to defend this law, a law which unfairly deprived Vermonters of their rights to participate fully in the past three elections," continued Toborg.  "We are pleased with the ruling, and hope the state will no longer toy with Vermont's election process."

Sharon Toborg is an attorney for and member of Vermont Right to Life