Randall v. Sorrell
This case involves constitutional challenges to several provisions of Vermont's campaign finance law, known as Act 64. The Vermont Republican State Committee and several other groups and individuals seek a declaration that the Act's mandatory spending limits infringe their First Amendment rights to freedom of speech and association. Act 64 limits campaign expenditures, contributions to candidates, and donations to a political party or political action committee. The Act also limits "coordinated expenditures" by third parties that benefit fewer than six candidates; this restriction is intended to limit financing from political action committees that are "fronting" for candidates.
The district court ruled that the spending limits in Act 64 were unconstitutional. The Second Circuit Court of Appeals reversed, holding that the Supreme Court's decision in Buckley v. Valeo is not an absolute bar to campaign spending limits, but permits spending limits that are "narrowly tailored to secure clearly identified and appropriately documented compelling governmental interests." The court found that Vermont had established two "compelling interests" in support of its spending limits: preventing the reality and appearance of corruption and protecting candidates and elected officials from spending significant amounts of time procuring contributions. The court remanded the case to the district court to determine whether Act 64 is "narrowly tailored" to secure those interests.
Questions Presented:
(1) Whether Vermont's mandatory limits on candidate expenditures violate the 1st and 14th Amendments and the Supreme Court's decision in Buckley v. Valeo?
(2) Whether Vermont's treatment of independent expenditures by political parties and committees presumptively coordinated if they benefit fewer than six candidates, and thereby subject to strict
contribution and expenditure limits, is consistent with the 1st and 14th Amendments and the Supreme Court's decision in Colorado Republican Federal Campaign Committee v. FEC?
(3) Whether Vermont's contribution limits, which are the lowest in the country, which allow only a single maximum contribution over a two-year election cycle, and which prohibit state political
parties from contributing more than $400 to their gubernatorial candidate, fall below an acceptable constitutional threshold and should be struck down?
