BrianGarst.com

The Supreme Court decided Randall v. Sorrell today, a case involving Vermont’s campaign finance laws. Though the decision struck down Vermont’s campaign spending limits, it was not a decisive victory for free speech. Instead, Roberts and Alito, both in their first ruling on campaign finance, agreed that some campaign contribution limits are consistent with the First Amendment. More on that at SCOTUSblog.

The court did reject expenditure limits on candidates as unconstitutional, however. The court found that limits that are too low give unfair advantages to incumbents by “preventing challengers from mounting effective campaigns.”

While this ruling is welcomed, what we really want to see is a challenge to the advertising restrictions of campaign finance that limit free speech at the time when it’s most vital to the exercise of core democratic rights, immediately before elections.

campaign finance free speech Randall v. Sorrell