548 U.S. 230 (2006)
Vermont enacted Act 64 in 1997. The statute’s stated purposes are to protect the democratic process from the influence of money, to reduce the importance of money in Vermont elections, to encourage candidates to spend a reasonable amount of time campaigning for office rather than raising funds, and to reduce the likelihood that candidates will be beholden to large contributors. The statute imposes two primary sets of limitations: expenditure limits and contribution limits.1
The expenditure limits restrict the total amount that a candidate for state office may spend during a two-year general-election cycle. For example, a candidate for governor may spend no more than $300,000; a candidate for lieutenant governor, no more than $150,000; a candidate for state senator, no more than $4,000 plus an additional $400 for each year of the term; and a candidate for state representative, no more than $2,000 plus an additional $200 for each year of the term. These limits are adjusted for inflation in even-numbered years. A candidate who spends more than the limit is subject to a civil penalty of three times the amount by which the expenditure exceeds the limit.2
The contribution limits restrict the amounts that individuals, political parties, and political action committees may contribute to candidates for state office. An individual may contribute no more than $400 to a candidate for governor, $300 to a candidate for lieutenant governor, and $200 to a candidate for state senator or representative. A political party may contribute no more than $10,000 to a candidate for governor, $5,000 to a candidate for lieutenant governor, and $2,000 to a candidate for state senator or representative. A political action committee may contribute no more than $2,000 to a candidate for governor, $1,000 to a candidate for lieutenant governor, and $500 to a candidate for state senator or representative. These limits are not adjusted for inflation.3
Petitioners are a group of individuals who have run for state office, raise funds for candidates, and contribute to candidates, and a political party. They filed this action in Federal District Court against respondents, who are state officials responsible for enforcing Act 64. They alleged that Act 64’s expenditure and contribution limits violate the First Amendment.4 The District Court held that the expenditure limits violate the First Amendment under Buckley v. Valeo. It also held that the contribution limits violate the First Amendment because they are too low to allow candidates to run effective campaigns.5
The Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reversed the District Court’s expenditure-limits holding and affirmed its contribution-limits holding. The Supreme Court granted certiorari.
Whether Vermont’s Act 64 expenditure limits violate the First Amendment?6
Expenditure limits are subject to strict scrutiny under the First Amendment as interpreted in Buckley v. Valeo because they impose severe restrictions on protected political expression and association.7
Yes. Act 64’s expenditure limits are not substantially different from the limits at issue in Buckley v. Valeo. They impose a substantial restriction on the ability of candidates to engage in protected political expression. The limits are not narrowly tailored to serve any compelling governmental interest.8
The expenditure limits violate the First Amendment.9
Related opinions on this issue
Justice Alito concurred in the judgment. He agreed that the limits are substantially lower than previously upheld ones. He also agreed that the limits are not adjusted for inflation. He would not reach the closely drawn test because the record is insufficient.10
Justice Kennedy concurred in the judgment. He would overrule Buckley v. Valeo. He would hold that the First Amendment prohibits any law limiting candidate expenditures.11
Joined by Justice Scalia
Justice Thomas concurred in the judgment. He would overrule Buckley. He would subject expenditure limits to strict scrutiny which they would fail.12
Justice Stevens dissented in part. He would uphold the expenditure limits. He argued they are a reasonable response to the corrupting influence of campaign contributions.13
Joined by Justice Ginsburg
Justice Souter joined Justice Stevens’ opinion. He agreed that the expenditure limits should be upheld for the reasons given.14
Joined by Justice Souter
Justice Ginsburg joined Justice Stevens’ opinion except as to Part II. She agreed that the expenditure limits should be upheld for the reasons given.15
Whether Vermont’s Act 64 contribution limits violate the First Amendment?16
Contribution limits are subject to less demanding scrutiny. They will be upheld if closely drawn to serve a sufficiently important interest such as preventing corruption or its appearance. They must not be so low as to prevent candidates from amassing resources for effective advocacy.17
Yes. Act 64 imposes contribution limits as low as $200 for contributions to candidates for state representative. These limits are substantially lower than those upheld in Buckley v. Valeo and Nixon v. Shrink Missouri Government PAC. They are the lowest in the Nation.
They are not adjusted for inflation. They impose a significant restriction on the ability of candidates to run competitive campaigns. The limits are not closely drawn to the interest in preventing corruption because they are too restrictive and lack special justification.18
The contribution limits violate the First Amendment.19
Related opinions on this issue
Justice Alito concurred in the judgment that the contribution limits are unconstitutional. He agreed that the limits are substantially lower than previously upheld limits. He also agreed that the limits are not adjusted for inflation. He would not reach whether they fail the closely drawn test because the record is insufficient to determine if they prevent effective campaigns.20
Justice Kennedy concurred in the judgment. He would overrule Buckley v. Valeo. He would hold that the First Amendment prohibits any law limiting contributions to candidates or political committees.21
Joined by Justice Scalia
Justice Thomas concurred in the judgment. He would overrule Buckley. He would subject contribution limits to strict scrutiny which they would fail.22
Justice Stevens concurred in part. He agreed that the contribution limits are unconstitutional. He noted that the limits are substantially lower than previously upheld ones and not adjusted for inflation.23
Joined by Justice Ginsburg
Justice Souter agreed that the contribution limits are unconstitutional for the reasons given by the plurality.
Joined by Justice Souter
Justice Ginsburg agreed that the contribution limits are unconstitutional for the reasons given by the plurality.