In 1976, the Supreme Court ruled, in
Buckley v. Valeo, that certain forms of campaign spending limits were illegal according to first ammendment rights. This equation of money with free speech has made it impossible to create effective restrictions that would limit the influence of the wealthy and their corporate entities on politics.
Today, two current cases in appeals courts have created conflicting precedents on this same issue. That means there is a chance for the Supreme Court to revisit this issue and, possibly, overturn Buckley v. Valeo...
An email from WASHPIRG that I received today outlines the opportunity:
A current case, Landell v. Sorrell, has provided us with a once-in-a-generation opportunity to convince the Supreme Court to revisit Buckley. In 1997, the state of Vermont passed a law limiting the amount candidates could spend while running for Governor and other state offices. That law has yet to be enforced, due to court actions. An appeals court ruled in August 2004 that spending limits may be constitutional in certain cases. In February 2005, the Court announced it will not rehear the case, preserving this landmark decision. This means that spending limits can be constitutional in New York, Connecticut and Vermont.
At the same time, another ruling in a New Mexico case struck down the City of Albuquerque's campaign spending limits - creating a potential conflict in the law - an ideal opportunity for the U.S. Supreme Court to step in and use this new case - Landell - as an opportunity to revisit the Buckley decision and recognize that campaign expenditure limits support key First Amendment values.
They are organizing a petition to send to senators to ask them to sign on to a friend-of-the-court brief encouraging the Supreme Court to take up the case.
http://www.pirg.org/alerts/route.asp?id=174&id4=ES
This development might actually harm Democrats though. As I understand it, it is the precedent of Buckley v. Landell which has protected the right of 527 organizations to accept donations unlimited in size. With Republicans running the House and Senate, it is pretty clear to me that any legislation passed as a result of a court ruling overtuning Buckley v. Landell would explicitly target mechanisms that benefit Democrats, such as 527s, without considering any serious reform. It is also clear to me that such legislation would be instantly moved to the top of the Republican legislative agenda. This could potentially deal a devastating blow to the Democratic party leading into the 2006 and/or 2008 elections.
At the same time, it does open the door for more sweeping and effective reforms, such as strict campaign spending limits for candidates and the comandeering of airwaves for free political ads, or preventing candidates from slandering through proxies like the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, at a later date. In the long term, breaking the circle of money and advertising in our political process could very well be one of the most important reforms that we could hope for for the future of this nation.
Overturning Buckley v. Landell would dramatically reshuffle the entire landscape of campaign finance reform. How do you think it would turn out? Is this a good idea?