Opinion ID: 787590
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: applicable constitutional principles

Text: 221 a) Overview 222 Neither Act 64's limits on expenditures nor its restrictions on independent fundraising and expenditures by state or local party committees involve new issues of constitutional law. 223 Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1, 96 S.Ct. 612, 46 L.Ed.2d 659 (1976) ( per curiam ), held, without qualification, that government may not limit campaign expenditures by candidates for electoral office. Id. at 45, 54, 57, 96 S.Ct. 612. Act 64 limits such expenditures notwithstanding Buckley. Indeed, the proponents of Act 64 never doubted its unconstitutionality under Buckley and enacted it for the explicit purpose of creating a vehicle for litigation to overturn Buckley. See infra note 2 and accompanying text. Act 64's limits on expenditures violate the First Amendment because they limit a broad spectrum of political speech and activity, including ordinary grassroots activities and editorializing and reporting by the press, for no permissible purpose. Further, they entrust those who enforce the law with unfettered, and unconstitutional, discretion to determine, often on an ad hoc basis, what acts of political advocacy are permitted and what are prohibited. Even if expenditure limits were not per se unconstitutional, the low level at which the limits are set by Act 64 so heavily favors incumbents that it can be upheld only by application of a legal test similarly skewed toward incumbents. See infra Part V(d). 224 Moreover, Act 64 treats a contribution to a local political party affiliate as a contribution to all affiliates and requires that all such contributions be initially deposited in the state party bank account. See infra note 1. This means that all funding for a local affiliate's activities—even for a six-pack of diet soda for a town committee picnic—must be approved and paid by the person who controls that statewide account. At a stroke, and without any proffered reason, much less a statement of a compelling governmental interest, this revolutionary provision destroys the autonomy of local affiliates of political parties from each other and from the state party organization, and thereby violates both freedom of speech and freedom of association. 225 Act 64 suppresses ordinary political activity at every level of the electoral process. It reflects the philosophy of one witness for the defense who testified that government ought to regulate political speech the way it regulates public utilities. Trial Tr. vol. V at 167 (Helen David-Friedman). Act 64 may be a popular law— although this dissent will note several instances of great disquiet and even shock among proponents upon learning what it actually says—but only because its proponents systematically divert attention from the law's actual provisions to the nobility of their goal—here the transfer of political power from special interests to ordinary citizens. Maj. Op. at 116, Appellant's Br. at 24-29; Trial Tr. vol. IX at 57-62 (Gordon Bristol); id. at 137 (Elizabeth Ready); Trial Tr. vol. VII at 88 (Cheryl Rivers); Trial Tr. vol. VIII at 63-64 (Peter Smith). However, even this attractive rhetoric cloaks sinister purposes. Foiling special interests while empowering ordinary citizens is a rhetorical staple of electoral politicians of every viewpoint because the terms are used as synonyms for one's opponents and supporters respectively. In this light, the pursuit of this goal through the regulation of political speech is the road to the suppression of opponents. 226 As Justice Brandeis once noted, The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well-meaning but without understanding. Olmstead v. United States, 277 U.S. 438, 479, 48 S.Ct. 564, 72 L.Ed. 944 (1928) (Brandeis, J., dissenting). And Justice Black has reminded us that [h]istory indicates that urges to do good have led to the burning of books and even to the burning of `witches.' Beauharnais v. Illinois, 343 U.S. 250, 274, 72 S.Ct. 725, 96 L.Ed. 919 (1952) (Black, J., dissenting). Act 64, which has its greatest impact in silencing those ordinary citizens whose active participation in politics takes place through organized groups, provides us with a modern reminder of the wisdom of those two statements. 227 b) Money and Protected Political Speech 228 The activities limited by Act 64 are the ordinary stuff of democracy that constitutes the core of the conduct protected by the First Amendment. There is practically universal agreement that a major purpose of [the First] Amendment was to protect political speech. Mills v. Alabama, 384 U.S. 214, 218, 86 S.Ct. 1434, 16 L.Ed.2d 484 (1966), quoted in McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Comm'n, 514 U.S. 334, 346, 115 S.Ct. 1511, 131 L.Ed.2d 426 (1995). Indeed, the First Amendment has its fullest and most urgent application precisely to the conduct of campaigns for political office. Buckley, 424 U.S. at 15, 96 S.Ct. 612 (quoting Monitor Patriot Co. v. Roy, 401 U.S. 265, 272, 91 S.Ct. 621, 28 L.Ed.2d 35 (1971)). 229 As Buckley held, because money is needed for access to resources of communication, any limit on the use of money for political speech is a limit on that speech. 424 U.S. at 19. Political speech without an audience is not worth the effort. Political speakers must therefore go to where voters are or speak through a medium that voters watch or hear. Without resources of communication, no speech is effective. Without money, resources are not obtainable. Cars use gas. Gas costs money. A candidate who has reached Act 64's limits on expenditures and may not even drive the family car to a town green to make a speech is as effectively barred from speaking as he or she would be if the law flatly prohibited the speech itself. As the Supreme Court has stated: 230 A restriction on the amount of money a person or group can spend on political communication during a campaign necessarily reduces the quantity of expression by restricting the number of issues discussed, the depth of their exploration, and the size of the audience reached. This is because virtually every means of communicating ideas in today's mass society requires the expenditure of money. The distribution of the humblest handbill or leaflet entails printing, paper, and circulation costs. Speeches and rallies generally necessitate hiring a hall and publicizing the event. 231 Buckley, 424 U.S. at 19, 96 S.Ct. 612. 232 Proponents of Act 64 rarely acknowledge this fact in stressing their preference for limiting political speech to the old-fashioned handshake campaign, Trial Tr. vol. IX at 47 (Gordon Bristol), including meet and greet events, Trial Tr. vol. X at 187 (Karen Kitzmiller), such as spaghetti suppers, Trial Tr. vol. IX at 221 (Anthony Pollina), little parties for 150 people to which a couple hundred people are invited by mail, id. at 141-42 (Elizabeth Ready), Rotary Club and Jaycees meetings, Trial Tr. vol. V at 43 (Donald Hooper), booths at county fairs, Trial Tr. vol. IX at 129 (Elizabeth Ready), barbecues, op-ed articles published in the press, id. at 135 (Elizabeth Ready), women's groups meetings, various boards meetings, Trial Tr. vol. VII at 17 (Toby Young), and so forth. However, all such activities consume resources for which someone makes, or has made, expenditures of money, e.g., use of a vehicle, gas, food, soft drinks, meeting rooms, postage, salaries for editors and deliverymen, a printing facility, and so forth. Act 64's proponents do not recognize these hard facts, but the Act does, and its limits on campaign expenditures directly affect—either by limiting or requiring a largely discretionary exemption for—each of the items described above. 233 c) Freedom to Organize Political Parties 234 The First Amendment requires that citizens be allowed freely to form political organizations at various levels of government. This protection extends to allowing organizations to be related to each other as affiliates of the same political party while still retaining much local autonomy. See Timmons v. Twin Cities Area New Party, 520 U.S. 351, 358, 117 S.Ct. 1364, 137 L.Ed.2d 589 (1997) (stating that political parties' government, structure, and activities enjoy constitutional protection and noting that a political party has `discretion in how to organize itself, conduct its affairs, and select its leaders,') (citing Eu v. San Francisco County Democratic Cent. Comm., 489 U.S. 214, 230, 109 S.Ct. 1013, 103 L.Ed.2d 271 (1989)); see also Buckley, 424 U.S. at 15, 96 S.Ct. 612 (recognizing the right `to associate with the political party of one's choice' and noting that `[e]ffective advocacy of both public and private points of view, particularly controversial ones, is undeniably enhanced by group association') (internal citations omitted). Act 64 treats state, county, and local affiliates of a political party as a single aggregated unit for purposes of fundraising and contribution limits, see Vt. Stat. Ann. tit. 17, § 2801(5), and requires that all contributions to a political party so defined be initially deposited in a single, statewide checking account. 1 As a result, local affiliates can raise and spend money only through access to, and with the permission of, whoever controls that bank account. 235 d) Sufficient Governmental Interests 236 The Supreme Court has held that only the prevention of corruption or the appearance of corruption constitutes a sufficiently compelling interest to limit contributions to candidates. See Buckley, 424 U.S. at 25-28, 96 S.Ct. 612 (holding that limiting the actuality and appearance of corruption is a constitutionally sufficient justification for a contribution limitation, but dismissing other proffered justifications for the limitation). It has also held, however, that neither the anti-corruption rationale, the interest in equalizing the financial resources of candidates, nor the increase in money spent on political campaigns justifies the limiting of amounts that candidates for office may spend to promote their candidacy. Id. at 45, 54, 57, 96 S.Ct. 612. Indeed, the Court has stated that 237 [t]he First Amendment denies government the power to determine that spending to promote one's political views is wasteful, excessive, or unwise. In the free society ordained by our Constitution it is not the government but the people—individually as citizens and candidates and collectively as associations and political committees—who must retain control over the quantity and range of debate on public issues in a political campaign. 238 Buckley, 424 U.S. at 57, 96 S.Ct. 612. 239 Since Buckley, the Court has adhered to the distinction between the regulation of contributions and the regulation of expenditures. See Federal Election Comm'n v. Colorado Republican Federal Campaign Comm., 533 U.S. 431, 440-41, 121 S.Ct. 2351, 150 L.Ed.2d 461 (2001) ( Colorado II ). In Colorado II, the Court made the statement, reaffirmed even more recently in McConnell v. Federal Election Comm'n, 540 U.S. 93, 124 S.Ct. 619, 655, 157 L.Ed.2d 491 (2003), that ever since we first reviewed the 1971 Act, we have understood that limits on political expenditures deserve closer scrutiny than restrictions on political contributions, because [r]estraints on expenditures generally curb more expressive and associational activity, and limits on contributions are more clearly justified by a link to political corruption. Id. The Court went on to state that  [g]iven these differences, we have routinely struck down limitations on independent expenditures by candidates, other individuals, and groups, while repeatedly upholding contribution limits. Id. at 441-42, 121 S.Ct. 2351 (citations and footnotes omitted) (emphasis in original). 240 One would think that the unqualified statements of the Supreme Court regarding the unconstitutionality of expenditure limits might be the end of the matter at this level of the court system, particularly since the sponsors of Act 64 have made no secret of their intention to enact it in order to provoke a test case to overrule Buckley with regard to expenditure limits. See Memorandum from Secretary of State Deborah L. Markowitz re: Review of Practical Policy and Legal Issues of Vermont's Campaign Finance Law (Jan. 9, 2001), available at http://vermont-elections.org/elections1/2001GAMemoCF.html ( 2001 Memorandum ); see also Hearing on H. 28 Before the Vt. House Comm. on Local Gov't, 64th Biennial Sess. (1997) (statement of Anthony Pollina); Hearing on H. 28 Before the Vt. Senate Comm. on Gov't Operations, 64th Biennial Sess. (1997) (statement of Sen. William Doyle); Vt. House Comm. of Conf., Report on Campaign Finance, H. 28, 64th Biennial Sess. (1997). 2 However, the views of my colleagues require that I describe in some detail why Act 64 is unconstitutional in the particular respects noted above, even under the constitutional test that they create. 241 e) Requisite Precision of Regulation 242 There is another body of First Amendment jurisprudence that is of relevance here: Any regulation of protected speech must embody valid criteria sufficiently precise to ensure that officials apply those criteria. See Thomas v. Chicago Park Dist., 534 U.S. 316, 323, 122 S.Ct. 775, 151 L.Ed.2d 783 (2002) (stating that the Supreme Court has required that a time, place, and manner regulation contain adequate standards to guide the official's decision and render it subject to effective judicial review); Forsyth County v. The Nationalist Movement, 505 U.S. 123, 131, 112 S.Ct. 2395, 120 L.Ed.2d 101 (1992) (`[A] law subjecting the exercise of First Amendment freedoms to the prior restraint of a license' must contain `narrow, objective, and definite standards to guide the licensing authority.') (quoting Shuttlesworth v. City of Birmingham, 394 U.S. 147, 150-51, 89 S.Ct. 935, 22 L.Ed.2d 162 (1969)). Otherwise, the officials who administer the law will have the discretion to fashion and apply their own criteria without restraint. See Thomas, 534 U.S. at 323, 122 S.Ct. 775 (Where the licensing official enjoys unduly broad discretion in determining whether to grant or deny a permit, there is a risk that he will favor or disfavor speech based on its content.); Forsyth, 505 U.S. at 131, 112 S.Ct. 2395 (If the permit scheme involves appraisal of facts, the exercise of judgment, and the formation of an opinion by the licensing authority, the danger of censorship and of abridgment of our precious First Amendment freedoms is too great to be permitted.) (internal citations omitted). 243 Far from precise, much of Act 64 is more a theory than a body of legal rules. What it actually means in practice has been, in a literal multitude of critical respects, simply left to future executive or judicial rulings. Act 64 bristles with interpretive issues—the meaning of anything of value, candidate, for the purpose of influencing an election, primarily benefits six or fewer candidates, single source, affirmative action to become a candidate, services by individuals volunteering their time, and so on—and with valuation questions—of mileage, use of a room, office, computer, phone, professional services, etc.—and leaves resolution of all of these issues to those who must administer and enforce the statute. See Vt. Stat. Ann. tit. 17, § 2801; 2001 Guide, supra; see also discussion infra Part III(h). 244 f) Appropriate Level of Scrutiny 245 It is standard First Amendment jurisprudence that governmental restraints on protected speech must be subjected to exacting scrutiny to survive a constitutional challenge. See Buckley, 424 U.S. at 16, 44-45, 96 S.Ct. 612 (referring to the exacting scrutiny required by the First Amendment, and applying exacting scrutiny to limitations on core First Amendment rights of political expression); Smith v. California, 361 U.S. 147, 151, 80 S.Ct. 215, 4 L.Ed.2d 205 (1959) (applying stricter standards to a statute that has a potentially inhibiting effect on speech, and noting that a man may the less be required to act at his peril here, because the free dissemination of ideas may be the loser) (citing Winters v. New York, 333 U.S. 507, 509-10, 517-18, 68 S.Ct. 665, 92 L.Ed. 840 (1948)); see also McIntyre, 514 U.S. at 347, 115 S.Ct. 1511 (applying exacting scrutiny to invalidate an Ohio law that prohibited the distribution of anonymous campaign literature); Meyer v. Grant, 486 U.S. 414, 420, 108 S.Ct. 1886, 100 L.Ed.2d 425 (1988) (holding that a statute prohibiting use of paid petition circulators burdens core political speech and is therefore subject to exacting scrutiny); Lerman v. Bd. of Elections, 232 F.3d 135, 146 (2d Cir. 2000) (applying exacting scrutiny to restriction of core political speech in overturning local residency requirement for petition witnesses). 246 The most exacting scrutiny must be given to legislation that expressly seeks to reallocate political power—in the view of Act 64's proponents, from special interests to ordinary citizens—by limiting the political activity of candidates for office and their supporters. See Buckley, 424 U.S. at 14-15, 96 S.Ct. 612 (calling political campaigns the fullest and most urgent application of the First Amendment guarantee, and invoking the `profound national commitment to the principle that debate on public issues should be uninhibited, robust, and wide-open') (quoting New York Times v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254, 270, 84 S.Ct. 710, 11 L.Ed.2d 686 (1964)). 247 As Justices Brandeis and Black have reminded us, the high-mindedness of a law's proponents is no guarantee that it does not flagrantly violate principles of freedom of expression. This is particularly true with regard to legislation that was, as I detail in Part VI(d) of this dissent, examined in the legislative process more for the nobility of its stated purposes than for what it actually says. Since Act 64's passage, surprise at its actual provisions and actual effects has been expressed by many of the law's proponents. 3 Notably, one vigorous supporter who has been described as its author, Anthony Pollina, see Vermont Reformer Says Law He Authored is Unconstitutional, Political Finance, The Newsletter, March, 2002, has since sought to run for office and brought a lawsuit claiming that Act 64 violates the First Amendment. See Ross Sneyd, Progressives Sue to Ensure Public Financing for Pollina, Associated Press, Mar. 12, 2002. 248 Moreover, high-mindedness is, for some, a mode of self-deception obscuring self-serving motives or, for others, a facade useful in disadvantaging political opponents, routinely referred to as special interests. When campaign finance legislation is considered by those in power, there is both motive and opportunity to craft rules that will restrain the political activity of opponents. My colleagues caution that the self-interest of incumbents should not cause us to presume that such legislation is unconstitutional. However, most of the major factual premises underlying Act 64 posit incumbents who value reelection over their duties to constituents and personal honor. These premises should not hold center stage when examining the ostensible justifications for Act 64 only to disappear when scrutinizing what its actual effects will be. 249 I also note that some of Act 64's proponents relied upon and quoted by my colleagues have themselves demonstrated the importance of self-interest among its supporters. For example, one (then) incumbent state senator testified that Act 64 was needed to stop the arms race in which some of her opponents buy ads and yard signs that catch voters' attention and cause voters to wonder whether she is running for reelection. Trial Tr. vol. IX at 148 (Elizabeth Ready). Another, as noted, brought a constitutional challenge to Act 64 when it impeded his political career. 250 Moreover, our experience in a similar area suggests that great caution is in order where incumbent legislators pass laws affecting their electoral fate. Legislatures can directly affect the outcome of elections through two kinds of legislation: reapportionment and campaign finance regulation. Our experience with reapportionment is that, over time, the self-interest of incumbents has become the sole guiding star. See infra Part IV(c). 251 Indeed, whenever Congress takes up legislation involving campaign finance, the press now openly discusses how various proposals will affect the prospects of particular political parties and candidates. See, e.g., Ruth Marcus & Dan Balz, Democrats Have Fresh Doubts on Soft Money Ban; Some Fear GOP Would Gain Edge in Campaign Finances, Washington Post, Mar. 5, 2001, at A1; John Mintz, McCain's Soft Money Pledge Alarms GOP; Republican Leaders Say Curbs Would Hurt Party's Election Chances, Give Fund-Raising Edge to Democrats, Labor Unions, Washington Post, Feb. 22, 2000, at A6. The assumption that these possible effects never enter the minds of the candidates for reelection who enact such legislation might be questioned by even the least cynical observer. Truly searching scrutiny of campaign finance legislation is therefore essential. 252 I respectfully submit that my colleagues have not given this legislation careful, much less exacting, scrutiny. Their opinion describes the provisions of Act 64 in only cursory fashion. In a show of deference exceeding even that accorded decisions of an administrative body, it accepts the theory and factual assumptions proffered by the law's supporters at face value even when their actions belie their words. See infra Part VI(d) (failure to comply with reporting requirements); infra Parts IV(b)(1)(C), IV(c) (spending more than Act 64's limits); supra Part II(f) (bringing a lawsuit to challenge the constitutionality of the Act); infra V(e) (same). And it ignores the holding of Buckley that expenditure limits are per se unconstitutional. 253 Even without the direct precedent of Buckley, First Amendment jurisprudence does not allow laws that burden and prohibit political advocacy to be justified by the proffer of a theory based on spoken and unspoken factual assumptions without the most exacting judicial scrutiny of that theory, those factual assumptions, and the actual provisions of the law as enacted. Such scrutiny requires an examination of the details of the law passed, the degree of burden it imposes on protected speech, and the interests asserted as its justification. Accordingly, I turn to what Buckley directs as the first step of constitutional analysis, the details of the law challenged. 424 U.S. at 12, 96 S.Ct. 612.