The U.S. Supreme Court finally sided with free speech in a case that challenged Vermont's campaign finance law.
A majority of the Supreme Court justices felt the law went too far (via Washington Post):
"The Supreme Court ruled Monday that Vermont's limits on contributions and spending in political campaigns are too low and improperly hinder the ability of candidates to raise money and speak to voters."
The spending limits imposed by Vermont's campaign finance law were ridiculously low (via Washington Post):
"In 1997, Vermont passed its campaign finance law, placing a $300,000 spending cap on gubernatorial candidates and lesser limits for other state political contests. Contributions to state campaigns were limited to as little as $200 per election cycle for state House races."
Various groups were involved in challenging the constitutionality of Vermont's campaign finance law, including the Vermont Libertarian Party, the Vermont Right to Life Committee and the Vermont Republican State Committee.
Here is what the Vermont Libertarian Party Chair, Hardy Machia had to say about Monday's Supreme Court ruling:
"It's a huge win for the Libertarian Party of Vermont. The ruling will help Libertarians in Vermont by allowing them to raise enough money to compete with the two entrenched parties."
You can read the Vermont LP's press release about Monday's ruling here. You can also check out their original press releases regarding their fight against the state campaign finance law, here and here.
This was the correct ruling based on free speech.
But what should actually be done is a law which outlaws bribes, through a change in legal presumptions.
In the drug war, if you get busted with 4 ounces of weed, the law presumes you are a drug dealer. No one has to prove you're a dealer.
Likewise, giving $500 or more to an elected official should be presumed bribery.
It's not charity because it's not tax deductible.
It doesn't violate free speech because you can spend all the money you want promoting candidates.
Of course, bribery does not apply to challengers who are not elected officials.
The Vermont Libertarian Party, now has a press release available about the ruling, which also includes audio commentary from our state chair, Hardy Machia, about the decision. For more info, visit our site: www.vtlp.org
This was the correct ruling based on free speech.
But what should actually be done is a law which outlaws bribes, through a change in legal presumptions.
In the drug war, if you get busted with 4 ounces of weed, the law presumes you are a drug dealer. No one has to prove you're a dealer.
Likewise, giving $500 or more to an elected official should be presumed bribery.
It's not charity because it's not tax deductible.
It doesn't violate free speech because you can spend all the money you want promoting candidates.
Of course, bribery does not apply to challengers who are not elected officials.
Posted by: Galileo at June 26, 2006 09:28 PM