DOES MONEY STILL TALK?

It could, politically speaking, be described as the mother of all dysfunctional relationships. For 30 years the nation's voters, money raisers, and politicians have lived with an overbearing partner that doesn't work, nobody much likes, and no one can figure out how to whip into shape.

That may change next week when U.S. Supreme Court justices consider the constitutionality of a Vermont law that takes on the troublesome partner--the court's own 1976 landmark Buckley v. Valeo campaign finance ruling, which limits individual contributions to political campaigns but allows candidates to spend as much as they please in pursuit of public office.

Justices will be asked to decide whether Vermont's attempt to restrict campaign spending violates the First Amendment or is the prerogative of states aiming to squeeze corruption out of politics. It gives the newly reconstituted court its first opportunity to revisit the Buckley money-is-speech precedent that defines unlimited campaign spending as a constitutional right. The outcome could have a dramatic effect on how far states can go in regulating campaigns in the future.

"Vermonters are turned off by the amount of money in campaigns, and we believe we can take actions to reform campaign finance to avoid corruption and the appearance of corruption," says Vermont Attorney General William Sorrell, who will argue the state's case. Reform supporters expect an uphill battle on the free-speech precedent--the Second Circuit Court of Appeals was fiercely divided--but say the dispute is being heard at an opportune time. Washington is in the midst of a pay-for-access lobbying scandal, and polls show Americans disgusted with money in politics. And there is near universal agreement that current campaign finance laws have not contained big money's influence--even with the 2002 ban on unregulated "soft money" donations to political parties.

"This is a big issue and the court will be grappling with it in a big way," says Edward Foley, director of the election law center at Ohio State University. The Watergate scandal and flow of enormous secret donations to President Nixon's campaign coffers led to significant reforms in the early 1970s, but after challenges by free-speech advocates from both parties, the high court in Buckley rejected limits on campaign spending. However, it said contributions did not rise to the same level of protected speech and could be restricted.

Dean push. The call for campaign reform in Vermont stemmed not from scandal but from a 1997 inaugural speech by then Gov. Howard Dean, who made "money does buy access" a major theme. By year's end, he had signed the nation's strictest campaign law: Individuals could give no more than $200 to local candidates, $300 to state Senate candidates, and $400 to statewide-office seekers. But the law's most controversial rule prevents gubernatorial candidates from spending more than $300,000, with lower limits for other statewide offices. To stem the influence of national interest groups, the act also caps out-of-state contributions at 25 percent.

The limits contradict the Buckley precedent, says Jim Barnett, chair of Vermont's Republican Party, which is a plaintiff in the case. He notes that with the law tied up in court since 1999, Dean himself ignored the spending restrictions during a hard-fought re-election battle. "We're trying to stand up not only for First Amendment rights that have been recognized by the U.S. Supreme Court but for regular people who want to challenge incumbent politicians and require reasonable resources to do that, "Barnett said. "This law makes it very difficult to unseat an incumbent--if you hit your limit you can't even drive yourself to a campaign event."

Cheryl Hanna's Vermont Law School students recently donned black robes and listened to Sorrell and opposing lawyer Peter Langrock for the American Civil Liberties Union argue the case. The students had overwhelmingly endorsed spending limits before the moot court. After? "Most felt it was a good thing that nobody can contribute more than a certain amount of money, but they were very much persuaded that you shouldn't be able to tell any candidate how much they can spend," Hanna said. The student judges upheld the state's right to set contribution limits but struck down its spending limits. How the real judges will rule is anyone's guess, but with two new Republican-appointed justices, the money is on their coming down just like the young lawyers in training.

PHOTO (COLOR): DEFENSIVE. Vermont's Attorney General Sorrell argued the case to law students.

PHOTO (COLOR)

~~~~~~~~

By Liz Halloran