For Release: February 8, 2006
Contact: Derek Cressman 916-446-4741

Citizen Organizations Call on Court to Approve Campaign Spending Limits

Limiting spending on political campaigns would help ensure a representative democracy, according to a brief filed today by eight grassroots citizen organizations that urged the Supreme Court of the United States to uphold the constitutionality of tough campaign finance reform.

"When powerful interests can spend more than the rest of us in political campaigns, it weakens the very fabric of democracy that Americans have worked for generations to create," said Derek Cressman, director of TheRestofUs.org, which organized the amicus brief from the groups. The National Association of State PIRGs (USPIRG), Common Cause, the League of Women Voters, AARP, Public Campaign, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, and the Union for Reform Judaism also signed the brief.

On February 28, the Court will consider whether campaign spending limits can be constitutional under any circumstances. The Second Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled that Vermont's campaign spending limits can be found constitutional. The Supreme Court last considered campaign spending limits in 1976 when it found that they were not justified on the grounds of preventing candidate corruption but left open the possibility that they might be justified for other reasons.

The reform organizations argue that spending limits are a justified measure to preserve representative democracy. The U.S. Constitution guarantees citizens the right to a republican form of government, which requires an elections process that accurately reflects the will of the voters. When the candidate who spends the most money wins 97% of elections, the brief argues that elections no longer reflect a true public consensus, but rather inflate the role of powerful donors.

The brief is posted at http://www.therestofus.org/Vermont/Reform.groups.spending.limits.brief.pdf. Excerpts follow:

"Vermont has a compelling interest in guaranteeing a republican form of government through bolstering voter engagement and participation in elections and enhancing the debate on public and electoral issues. That interest is of constitutional significance and suffices by any measure as a compelling state interest that outweighs the interest of candidates with ample funds to spend without limit. Because that interest is so strong, and is asserted by a state with its own constitutional responsibilities in the area of republican self-governance and elections, it warrants deference by this Court."

"The underlying principle of a republican government is that citizens have the right and responsibility to elect representatives to govern them. The representatives, in turn, must act in the interest of those they represent. This relationship thrives when representatives deliberate upon and determine the collective best interest. The republican form of government also depends on public participation in elections and in communicating with their representatives, which enhances the legitimacy of government and improves public policy by fostering the involvement of citizens with a wide range of perspectives.

In enacting expenditure limits, Vermont understood the importance of deliberation and public participation in preserving a republican form of government. These important traditions have long been part of Vermont's political culture. Act 64's expenditure limits promote deliberation and public participation by preventing corruption and its appearance; increasing the competitiveness of elections and the number of candidates who can run for elected office; creating more time for deliberation among elected officials; and fostering direct voter contact by elected officials."

#-#-#
TheRestofUs.org is a non-partisan watchdog of the role of big money in politics.