SCOTUS: Victory For Speech?
By krempasky Posted in FEC — Comments (12) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
“Justices Thomas and Scalia: Hi, this is Clarence. Nino isn’t writing because he can’t talk about this stuff without his head exploding.” - Allison Hayward
Sure seems like it. SCOTUS has apparently struck down Vermont's campaign finance law. AP story here. We'll be adding to this post throughout the day - and make sure to keep an eye on Allison. (btw, the question mark in the title? Apparently Breyer wrote the opinion)
From SCOTUSblog:
"Justice Stephen G. Breyer announced that as the summary of the ruling in three consolidated cases. The vote was 6-3; the Court issued four opinions for the majority and two for the dissent."
Wow. That's a lot of opinions.
[UPDATE by Crank 11:57 EDT]: I'll repeat my RedHot post here so you can follow the links & comment. Go here for the syllabus summarizing how the decision played out, and for links to the opinions by Justices Breyer, Alito, Kennedy, Thomas, Stevens and Souter. Unfortunately, it looks like the arrival of two new Justices has done nothing to prevent the perennial splintering of the Court on this issue, as Roberts and Alito joined Breyer's opinion striking down the statute on what looks (at first glance) on fairly specific grounds, while Kennedy joined only the result, Thomas (joined by Scalia) sought a broader reversal of precedent in this area, and Alito specifically observed that the Court was not considering overruling Buckley v. Valeo because it had not been properly briefed on the stare decisis considerations involved in overturning a prior decision. Reading the tea leaves, there are two votes to overrule Buckley, Alito is signalling that he might be open to do so but refuses to do so unless specifically asked, Kennedy would seem unlikely to consider such a request but has expressed grave dissatisfaction with the workability of the present system, and Roberts isn't showing his cards.
[SECOND UPDATE by Crank 12:07 EDT]: Actually, Roberts specifically joined the part of Breyer's opinion refusing to overturn Buckley's holding that expenditure limits violate free speech.
« Financing the General Election — Comments (6) | Victory for Speech: Putting 1606 back in the holster — Comments (9) »
SCOTUS: Victory For Speech? 12 Comments (0 topical, 12 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
Gary, It doesn't appear from the initial reports that it will impact federal restrictions. According to the AP, the "justices said they were not sweeping aside 30 years of election finance precedent but rather finding only that Vermont's law -- the strictest in the nation -- sets limits that unconstitutionally hamstring candidates."
I'd have preferred to see Alito and Roberts in the Thomas/Scalia "throw out Buckley now" opinion.
A bit off topic, but this leaves Justice Kennedy as the only Justice who hasn't authored an opinion from the sitting when the Texas redistricting cases were handed down. [shudder] Given this, I have to wonder if Justice Stevens's reference to Veith as an example of a case of lessened stare decisis concern means anything . . .
CJ Roberts has said that he wanted cases to be narrowly decided and not broadly sweeping, looks like he is keeping to that.
I think the Court got it right. Diaried it at that "angry" place, for those who are interested.
Look's like another narrow ruling which confines itself to the case in question. If you think Buckley was good law, which the majority did and I agree with, then this is a good outcome.
[SECOND UPDATE by Crank 12:07 EDT]: Actually, Roberts specifically joined the part of Breyer's opinion refusing to overturn Buckley's holding that expenditure limits violate free speech.
In fact, if true, this is very bad. Very, very bad.
I read the update to say that Roberts thought donation limits were constitutional.
If he was just saying that a candidate is constitutionally free to spend as much of his/her own money as the candidate wants, then that's fine.
But some of the comments over at ConfirmThem were less sanguine about whether Roberts would be willing to throw out donor limits. Which is a problem, in my book...
The problem with that idea is that neither Roberts nor Alito would do something like that. If Buckley is specifically challenged or if there is a law that borrows directly from Buckley. Vermont is far more restrictive than Buckley or any other state/federal campaign law.
This decision strikes down expenditure limits which is really the #1 restriction of free speech in campaign finance laws. Now we need a reversal of the banning of specific advertisements within a time period before a federal election. Other finance laws related to campaigns are good in my opinion, but not those that restrict First Amendment rights.
It looks encouraging. I wonder if this means anything to the federal campaign finiance law.