Opinion ID: 787590
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Limitations on Contributions by Individuals to Candidates

Text: 152 The contribution limits of $200 (state representative), $300 (state senator), and $400 (statewide office) are subject to a lesser degree of scrutiny than expenditure limits, as explained most recently by the Supreme Court in Shrink, 528 U.S. at 386, 120 S.Ct. 897. Contribution limits can survive if the Government demonstrated that contribution regulation was closely drawn to match a sufficiently important interest, though the dollar amount of the limit need not be fine tuned. Id. at 387-88, 120 S.Ct. 897 (internal quotation marks omitted). 153 The governmental interest in eliminating actual and apparent corruption is sufficient to support Vermont's limits on contributions to candidates. The Buckley Court upheld limitations of $1000 on contributions to candidates for federal office on the strength of this interest alone. It is unnecessary to look beyond the Act's primary purpose—to limit the actuality and appearance of corruption resulting from large individual financial contributions—in order to find a constitutionally sufficient justification. . . . 424 U.S. at 26, 96 S.Ct. 612; see also McConnell, 540 U.S. at ___, 124 S.Ct. at 647 (explaining that in Buckley, the Court determined that limiting contributions served an interest in protecting `the integrity of our system of representative democracy') (quoting Buckley, 424 U.S. at 26-27, 96 S.Ct. 612); Jacobus v. Alaska, 338 F.3d 1095, 1107 (9th Cir.2003) ([A] failure to regulate the arena of campaign finance allows the influence of wealthy individuals and corporations to drown out the voices of individual citizens, producing a political system unresponsive to the needs and desires of the public, and causing the public to become disillusioned with and mistrustful of the political system.). In this case, the District Court relied on trial testimony, citizen polls, comments by public officials and media coverage to demonstrate the real and perceived threat of corruption in Vermont. 118 F.Supp.2d at 469, 478. As the District Court concluded, [t]he threat of corruption in Vermont is far from illusory. Id. at 478. 154 In addition, we conclude that the Vermont limits are closely drawn to this anti-corruption interest. The District Court's findings in this respect are reasonable and based on the evidence adduced at trial. Id. at 470, 478-80. The District Court relied in part on expert testimony indicating that over the last three election cycles, less than 10 percent of contributions exceeded the limits set by the Vermont legislature. Id. at 478. Based on testimony by both plaintiffs' and defendants' witnesses, the District Court also concluded that the limitations approximated amounts considered suspiciously large by the Vermont public. Id. at 479-80. And finally, the court compared the Vermont law to similar limits upheld in Maine and Missouri. In Maine, a limit of $250 for House and Senate candidates was upheld. See Daggett v. Comm'n on Governmental Ethics & Election Practices, 205 F.3d 445, 459 (1st Cir.2000). In Missouri, limits of $1075, $525, and $275, depending on the size of the electoral district have been upheld. See Shrink, 528 U.S. at 396-98, 120 S.Ct. 897, remanded to Shrink Mo. Gov't PAC v. Adams, 204 F.3d 838, 840-42 (8th Cir.2000). 28 155 The contribution ceilings are also sufficiently high to permit effective campaigning. Overly restrictive contribution limits might have a severe impact on political dialogue if the limitations prevented candidates and political committees from amassing the resources necessary for effective advocacy. Buckley, 424 U.S. at 21, 96 S.Ct. 612. Contribution limits, however, need not be perfectly set: the failure of the legislators to engage in such fine tuning does not invalidate the legislation. Id. at 30, 96 S.Ct. 612. As we have indicated, distinctions in degree become significant only when they can be said to amount to differences in kind. Id. We agree with the District Court's conclusion that the contribution limits imposed by Act 64 do not amount to differences in kind. 156 As the District Court found, the limits imposed by Vermont hardly overwhelm the ability of candidates to engage in active and effective campaigning. The District Court marshaled evidence to support its findings, and conducted a fact-intensive analysis of what constitutes effective campaigning. 118 F.Supp.2d at 478-79. Moreover, Vermont has actually conducted an election since the imposition of these contribution limits (for Mayor of Burlington), and that election involved effective campaigns despite the contribution limitations. Id. at 471, 479. Subject to the applicable limits imposed by the statute, the mayoral candidates raised funds comparable to the amounts spent in State Senate races in the past. Id. The District Court further concluded that the limits may actually improve the ability of candidates to campaign, by freeing candidates from the time-consuming task of wooing big donors. Id. at 480. 157