For Immediate Release: September 27, 2005

Supreme Court May Finally Allow Limits on Political Campaign Spending

Today, the Supreme Court of the United States announced that it would hear what could become a precedent-shattering case dealing with campaign finance reform. The case involves a Vermont law that sets mandatory limits on political campaign spending, something the Supreme Court rejected in a 1976 case known as Buckley v. Valeo.

“It’s high time that the highest court in the land recognized the deep trouble our democracy is in and upheld laws to take elections off the auction block,” said Derek Cressman, director of TheRestofUs.org, a political watchdog group that filed an amicus brief urging the Court to take this case. “Setting limits on big money in politics is among the most commonsense of all political reforms and for too long the Supreme Court has stood in the way.”

The Second Circuit Court of Federal Appeals has ruled that campaign spending limits can be constitutional. Should the U.S. Supreme Court uphold that view, it would pave the way for other states and the US Congress to enact tough campaign finance laws that would reduce the influence of money on election outcomes.

TheRestofUs.org submitted an amicus brief last June that was also signed by U.S. PIRG, Common Cause, the League of Women Voters, Public Campaign, Demos, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, and Reclaim Democracy.org. That brief argued that judicial modesty and principles of federalism are reasons why the unelected Federal Supreme Court should hesitate to overturn the judgment of Vermont’s legislature in acting to protect the integrity of its elections process.

#-#-#

TheRestofUs.org is an internet-based watchdog of the role of big money in politics. Visit us at www.TheRestofUs.org. Its founder, Derek Cressman, has been a leading advocate of overturning Buckley v. Valeo for the last ten years.