On January 30, 1976, the Supreme Court of the United States issued the infamous Buckley v. Valeo ruling that struck down campaign finance reforms intended to reduce the undue influence of wealthy interests on election outcomes.  By wrongly equating big money in politics with free speech, the Court has blocked reforms to our electoral process that would let ordinary Americans determine who runs for office, who  wins elections, and what issues dominate the agenda.

CAMPAIGN SPENDING LIMITS

U.S. Supreme Court Grants Review of Critical Campaign Spending Limits Case

The Supreme Court announced Tuesday, September 27 that it will hear arguments on a landmark Vermont campaign spending limits case. Campaign spending limits can curb the fundraising arms race; level the playing field for grassroots candidates and challengers; and prevent wealthy candidates from buying elected office. This powerful reform options has been kept off the public agenda for 30 years by a flawed Supreme Court decision. Now the Court has the chance to revisit this ruling and open the door for spending limits nationwide. MORE.

The Buck Buckley Campaign

Within the next few months, the Supreme Court will decide whether to revisit its widely criticized Buckley ruling. Click HERE to find out how you can help convince the Court to take the case and free American citizens to regain control of local, state, and national politics.

A coalition of reform organizations including the National Voting Rights Institute, the state Public Interest Research Groups (PIRGs), Common Cause, Brennan Center for Justice, Fannie Lou Hamer Project, Demos, Democracy Matters, TheRestofUs.org, Citizens for Responsibility & Ethics in Washington, Public Campaign, ReclaimDemocracy.org and others have launched the Buck Buckley Campaign to educate citizens about core campaign finance reform issues and to build support for revisiting/overturning the Buckley v. Valeo decision. Our goal is to raise a united voice that Buckley—as it is currently interpreted—must go.

A current case, Landell v. Sorrell, has provided us with a once-in-a-generation opportunity to convince the Supreme Court to revisit Buckley. In 1997, the state of Vermont decided it had enough of the outrageous cost of campaigns, and passed a law limiting the amount candidates could spend while running for Governor and other state offices. That law has yet to be enforced, due to court actions. Finally, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit held in August 2004 that spending limits may be constitutional in certain cases. In February 2005, the Court announced it will not rehear the case en banc, preserving this landmark decision. This means that spending limits can be constitutional in New York, Connecticut and Vermont.

The February announcement comes on the heels of the Supreme Court's recent decision not to hear an appeal of the 10th Circuit's Homans v. Albuquerque ruling striking the City of Albuquerque's candidate expenditure limits.

Given a clear circuit split on a critical point of law, we urge the U.S. Supreme Court to use Landell as an opportunity to revisit Buckley and recognize that campaign expenditure limits vindicate rather than undermine key First Amendment values.

The time has come for citizens to stand up for what is right and to guarantee government of the people, by the people, and for the people.

Home

Join the Campaign: Sign the Petition

News Releases

The Current State of Spending Limits Law

Why We Need Spending Limits

Myths About Spending Limits

Summary of 2nd Circuit Ruling

Overview of Vermont and Albuquerque Cases

More Details on the Vermont Case

What Current and Former Officials Are Saying About Buckley

What Legal Experts Are Saying About Buckley