Court strikes down Vermont campaign finance law.
By on Jun 26th, 2006 at 10:19 am
Court strikes down Vermont campaign finance law.
The Supreme Court has voted 6-3 to strike down a 1997 Vermont law that put a sharp ceiling on how much a candidate for state office could spend. (Candidates for governor could spend no more than $300k, candidates for lieutenant governor no more than $100k, etc.) A federal appeals court had previously upheld the law.
View Most Popular
Advertisement
What We're About
What We're Fighting For
What We're Fighting Against
Featured
Subscribe to the Progress Report
Topic CloudView topics sorted by popularity
Afghanistan
Bachmann
Beck
Boehner
Business
Civil Rights
Congress
Corporate Ethics
Dobbs
Economy
Education
Election
Energy
Environment
Ethics
Fox News
Gingrich
Global Warming
Health Care
Hoffman
Immigration
International Relations
Iraq
Justice
LGBT
Lieberman
Limbaugh
Media
Military
O'Reilly
Obama
Palin
Pelosi
Politics
Race
Radical Right
Religion
Sports
Steele
Stimulus
Tea Parties
Tea Party
Terrorism
Veterans
Women's Rights
Visit Our Affiliated Sites
Reports
In-depth studies on select topics
Got a hot tip?
Have a hot news tip? We'd love to hear from you. Use the form below to send us the latest.
ArchivesBlog Roll
Without some form of campaign finance reform we will be doomed to be in control of the biggest contributors, (AKA big business).
I hope they can come up with something that can pass legal muster.
June 26th, 2006 at 10:23 amI understand that in 2000, several hundred florida Democrats voted for Bush. But then you can’t be sure with the dubious machines and rampant voter supression…Wo’s sorry now?
Goper’s Lament
June 26th, 2006 at 10:24 amI am always amused by the claim that spending money is comparable to “free speech” and that limiting spending would be like curtailing free speech.
If your fiscal “voice†were as loud as a volcano (say 1 million dollars to spend) that would make most other people’s voices about as loud as a mosquito fart ($100 to spend).
Curtailing campaign spending only limits the influence of “special interestsâ€.
June 26th, 2006 at 10:35 amJust let the politicians buy their positions with corporate funds and be done with voting for them > Supreme Court does not believe in Democracy anymore since they appointed the Dubya Dunce Decider to the presidency in 2000!
June 26th, 2006 at 10:42 am# Democrat Soldier,
I, too, have never been able to understand the legal equivalence of “money” and “free speech”. I think that the Supreme Court was wrong to equate the two. “Free Speech” refers only to the content of what you say, not how much money you have to spend to say it. Besides, the candidates only want to be able to spend so much money so they can buy air time on TV and radio. They don’t want to have to be creative and earn the job. If there were limits to how much could be spent, they might have to actually work to get re-elected. No wonder they oppose reform.
Once again: Indistrict Financing. Candidates for US Representative or US Senator should only be allowed to accept campaign contributions from the people in their districts or states (respectively). Since corporations have no rights under the Constitution (including the right to vote), there is no sensible reason why they should be allowed to contribute to campaigns. None. The only way that the people can begin to believe that the Congress is working for the people they are supposed to be representing (and not for Corporate America) is if they are barred from accepting money from businesses. Otherwise, the oil and energy industries have more say over the law of our land than you or I ever would.
June 26th, 2006 at 10:59 am[...] The AP story, courtesy of the SJMerc, is here. Readers of ThinkProgress are unhappy. [...]
June 26th, 2006 at 11:03 amThese types of laws are treating the symptoms instead of the illness.
June 26th, 2006 at 11:29 amit’s the New World Order.
You= $2 a day debt slave with no benefits and no home of your own
June 26th, 2006 at 11:39 amthey= holders of 98% of the world’s wealth
“One dollar, one vote” – democracy in America.
June 26th, 2006 at 11:43 amThe court has consistently overturned spending caps.
There is a book called “Buckley Stops Here” which tries to go into all the details, but it isn’t written for the uninitiated. One can read the first chapter and executive summary at the link provided.
“Your honor, the court has shown time and time again that money equals speech. In lieu of the rest of my closing argument, please accept this compelling stack of unmarked $20 bills.”
June 26th, 2006 at 11:43 amI never realized election law had the purpose of forcing “creativity” from candidates.
Oh wait, it doesn’t.
June 26th, 2006 at 11:56 amI disagree Chase, alot of politicians have found some creative ways to circumvent election laws.
June 26th, 2006 at 12:16 pmKrazny! Snarky and true! Quite a comment!
And I offer a Homerian nod, but only slightly. While the unintended consequence of restrictive election law is creative circumvention by less-principled candidates, that was certainly not the intent.
June 26th, 2006 at 12:39 pmbuy buy buy
sell sell sell
Capitalism has knocked the living shit out of Democracy, yet again
once again, big business has a reason to cheer Justice Roberts
June 26th, 2006 at 12:43 pm#5, Good post, Wayne
June 26th, 2006 at 12:52 pmCoroporate America has no vote; they have to buy it.
Corporate Citizenship, however, has gained important
status under the Bushit admin., and they now expect
‘payback’. That’s ‘Political Capital’. Remember Bush
saying that after the ‘04 election theft?
Political Capital has become more important than votes.
Why vote when you can buy it? With Corporate Citizenship
outweighing individual votes, we evolve into a Fascist state,
even if unintended.
Had enough, America?
“once again, big business has a reason to cheer Justice Roberts”
good try – except breyer wrote the opinion of the court.
and that’s chief justice roberts to you, little man.
June 26th, 2006 at 1:00 pm#16 – For someone who’s suddenly so big on proper titles, you conveniently ignore upper case where it should exist.
So, to quote someone I recently read, “That’s Chief Justice Roberts to you, little man.” ;-)
June 26th, 2006 at 1:37 pm