WASHINGTON — Supreme Court justices today questioned whether a Vermont law that limits how much money can be spent on political campaigns unfairly curtails candidates' ability to speak freely to voters.
"You're constraining speech. ... That's very unusual," said Justice Antonin Scalia. "You're saying ... we, the state, will tell you how much campaigning is enough. That's extraordinary."
The case — actually the consolidated trio Randall v. Sorrell, Sorrell v. Randall and Vermont Republican State Committee v. Sorrell — could have a dramatic impact on how elections are financed and run across the country.
The dispute arose out of Vermont's landmark 1997 campaign-finance law, which included a $300,000 spending cap for 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.
Those challenging the law, including the Vermont Republican State Committee and the Vermont Right to Life Committee, say unfettered spending by candidates is a critical First Amendment right.
"We are talking about speech at the core of the First Amendment," attorney James Bopp Jr. told the justices during today's oral arguments.
The high court's last major ruling on campaign spending limits was three decades ago. In 1976, the Court said in Buckley v. Valeo that states could cap contributions, but not how much candidates could spend.
Advocates for the Vermont law, considered one of the nation's strictest, contend that big-ticket contributors and unlimited campaign spending corrupt the political process.
Vermont state Attorney General William Sorrell said the limits help politicians focus on campaigning and their legislative duties rather than on raising huge sums of money.
"We have a real problem in Vermont," Sorrell said, citing testimony at public hearings in his state about the corrosive influence of money in politics. State polls reflect high levels of voter cynicism with the political process, he added.
Sorrell, who had said he expected an uphill fight in the high court, faced sharp questioning by several justices.
Chief Justice John Roberts sounded skeptical about the extent of political corruption in Vermont.
"I thought if you looked at the record, Vermont would be the last place you'd worry about," Roberts said.
Some justices questioned whether Vermont's low contribution limits would make it hard for challengers to take on well-established incumbents.
"To the ear, that sounds like a challenger ... is going to have a tough time," said Justice Stephen Breyer.
Brenda Wright, a National Voting Rights Institute lawyer who joined Sorrell in supporting Vermont's law, told the justices that politicians in the state "were spending as much time begging for funds as campaigning."
Meeting with reporters outside the Court after the session, Sorrell stressed that Vermont hoped to prevent corruption cases with its election laws.
"We don't think the Constitution requires that we wait until we get a governor in prison before we can take effective strides to enhance the integrity of how our government runs," Sorrell said.
Paul Burns, executive director of Vermont Public Interest Research Group, which backed the law, said he hoped the state could make issues, not money, paramount in elections.
"We want the freedom to make sure that Vermont has the cleanest and fairest elections of any place in this country," said Burns outside the Court. "We believe simply that elections should be decided on the merits of the candidates' ideas and not on the size of the candidates' wallets."
Bopp, meanwhile, said he was "very encouraged by the questioning" of the Court and looked forward to a decision by the justices.