During oral arguments this week, Chief Justice John Roberts expressed skepticism about Vermont campaign finance limits. The same questions could apply to many other ill-conceived campaign finance laws that, as usual, have illusory benefits and unintended negative side effects. Here's an excerpt:
The chief justice challenged the attorney general's assertion that money was a corrupting influence on Vermont's political system, the state's main rationale for its law. "How many prosecutions for political corruption have you brought?" he asked the state official.
"Not any," Mr. Sorrell replied.
"Do you think corruption in Vermont is a serious problem?"
"It is," the attorney general replied, noting that polls showed that most state residents thought corporations and wealthy individuals exerted an undue influence in the state.
The chief justice persisted. "Would you describe your state as clean or corrupt?" he asked.
"We have got a problem in Vermont," Mr. Sorrell repeated.
The chief justice pressed further. If voters think "someone has been bought," he said, "I assume they act accordingly" at the next election and throw the incumbent out.
He also challenged a line from the attorney general's 50-page brief, an assertion that donations from special-interest groups "often determine what positions candidates and officials take on issues." Could the attorney general provide an example of such an issue, Chief Justice Roberts asked. Mr. Sorrell could not, eventually conceding that "influence" would have been a better word than "determine."
This is the kind of fresh thinking that we need. Sacred cows like campaign finance contribution limits need to be carefully re-examined from time to time. It is high time that someone asked the question of whether the benefits of such statutes are real or imagined, and whether any supposed benefits outweigh their real-world costs.
_____________________________________
More commentary at Captain's Quarters
Comments