 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
| NEWS RELEASES | |||||||||||||||
|
|
Reformers Denounce Supreme Court’s Refusal
to
The Supreme Court’s decision today to let stand the 10th Circuit Court’s rejection of Albuquerque’s mandatory limits on campaign spending is a lost opportunity to make elections more democratic, according to campaign finance reform proponents.
“The justices are siding with a narrow minority, namely the handful of fat cats that throw big money into political campaigns, and siding against the rest of us. They are using a twisted view of the federal constitution to overturn a local law that was supported by 90% of the citizens,” said Derek Cressman, director of TheRestofUs.org, a pro-reform group that had filed an amicus brief urging the Court to take this case. “It’s just plain wrong to equate the buying of elections with free speech,” he added.
Albuquerque had mandatory spending limits in place for its local elections from 1974 until courts suspended them in 2001 in the case Homans v. City of Albuquerque. The limits had served the city well, leading to fair and competitive elections. On September 22 of this year, Albuquerque appealed to the US Supreme Court to review the lower court’s suspension of the spending limits. The Supreme Court’s refusal today means that Albuquerque’s spending limits are now permanently overruled.
Reformers still hold out hope that the Supreme Court may take up another case from Vermont, where the 2nd Circuit Court of Federal Appeals has upheld mandatory spending limits. “I hope that President Bush makes good on his promise not to appoint more activist judges to the Supreme Court who project their own policy views onto the US Constitution to throw out laws that the people pass to protect our democracy,” said Cressman. “If the Court continues to keep our elections on the auction block, reformers will need to pass a constitutional amendment to authorize mandatory spending limits.”
Retiring US Senator Fritz Hollings from South Carolina and Pennsylvania Senator Arlen Specter have long championed a constitutional amendment that would overturn the Supreme Court’s previous Buckley v. Valeo decision and authorize Congress and the states to set mandatory campaign spending limits.
In the most recent congressional elections where there are no spending limits, the candidate who spent the most won 96 percent of House races and 91% of Senate races.
#-#-# Our amicus brief (also signed by New Mexico PIRG, Common Cause, Public Campaign, Demos, the Committee for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, and ReclaimDemocracy.org) is available at http://www.therestofus.org/ABQ/abqindex.htm home > media
center > news releases > 10/6/04 |
|
