Spending-Limit Law Gets a Chilly Hearing

Vermont and its campaign spending reformers got a skeptical hearing from the Supreme Court on Tuesday as Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. led the way in questioning whether a state could put a lid on money in politics.

At issue is whether a state can limit both how much candidates can spend and how much contributors can give them.

“We are trying to create competitive elections and grass-roots campaigning,” with volunteers going door-to-door, said Vermont’s attorney general, William H. Sorrell. “A tremendous amount of campaigning can be done with a limited expenditure.”

He was defending a law -- not yet in effect -- that would restrict candidates for the Legislature to spending no more than $4,000 on their campaigns. A candidate for governor would be limited to $300,000.

Most election law experts are watching the case to see whether the justices will strike down the state’s low contribution limits, as well as the spending caps. Donors could give no more than $300 to candidates running for the Legislature.

If the law were upheld, liberal supporters believe other states would follow suit, hoping to replace big-money campaigns and negative TVs ads with more personal appeals to ordinary voters.

But Vermont’s argument fell flat in the high court Tuesday, especially with the new chief justice.

“Is Vermont a clean state or corrupt?” Roberts asked the Vermont attorney general. If it is corrupt, he said, more politicians should be prosecuted. “How many prosecutions have been brought for political corruption?” he continued.

Sorrell said that the problem was not bribery, but that money influenced what legislation won a hearing. During state hearings, lawmakers admitted that the drive for campaign money affected their decisions, he said.

“In Vermont, if you accept $1,000, they think you have been bought,” Sorrell said.

Roberts said he was not convinced. “I assume if they think the candidate can be bought, they would act accordingly at the polls -- don’t reelect that candidate,” he said.

Thirty years ago, the Supreme Court, in the case of Buckley vs. Valeo, struck down federal spending limits and said candidates had a free-speech right to spend as much money as they could raise.

The Vermont case, Randall vs. Sorrell, challenged that rule. But a majority of the justices seemed inclined to stick with it.

“You are not talking about money. You are talking about speech,” Justice Antonin Scalia told the defenders of the Vermont law. “You are constraining speech. And that is very unusual in American democracy.”

James Bopp Jr., an Indiana lawyer representing Vermont Republicans, urged the court to strike down the entire law. “This is fundamentally incompatible with the 1st Amendment,” he said.

One argument against campaign contribution limits is that they tend to favor incumbents.

“Aren’t the limits too low -- so low that you would shut off a challenger?” Justice Stephen G. Breyer asked.

Sorrell said districts in Vermont were small, with only 4,000 residents. “Candidates can amass enough to run an effective campaign. It is primarily door-to-door campaigning, with yard signs,” he said.

In the past, three justices -- Clarence Thomas, Anthony M. Kennedy and Scalia -- have voted to strike down contribution limits on free-speech grounds. If Roberts and new Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. join them, a new majority could say further contribution limits were unconstitutional.

But Alito, who said little during the argument, did not tip his hand.