By David Farmer,Staff Writer
Reform expert says Maine’s law likely safe from a similar challenge

LEWISTON – The U.S. Supreme Court ruled Monday that Vermont’s strictest-in-the-nation limits on state campaign contributions and political spending violate the First Amendment of the Constitution.

In 1997, Vermont passed campaign finance reform that limited spending in gubernatorial races to $300,000 per candidate and as little as $2,000 for campaigns in single-member districts for the Legislature.

The law also limited contributions in state House races to just $200 total for both party primaries and the general election. And it capped contributions to gubernatorial candidates to $400 total.

The court found the spending limits were unconstitutional and that, while it normally defers to the Legislature to set particular contribution limits, there must be a floor below which the law improperly limits speech.

“We must recognize the existence of some lower bound. At some point the constitutional risks to the democratic electoral process become too great,” Justice Stephen Breyer wrote. “After all, the interests underlying contribution limits, preventing corruption and the appearance of corruption ‘directly implicate the integrity of our electoral process.’ … Yet that rationale does not simply mean ‘the lower the limit, the better.'”

Breyer continued: “That is because contribution limits that are too low can also harm the electoral process by preventing challengers from mounting effective campaigns against incumbent officeholders, thereby reducing democratic accountability. Were we to ignore that fact, a state that seeks to regulate campaign contributions could itself prove an obstacle to the very electoral fairness it seeks to promote.”

Like Vermont, Maine has tight limits on the amount of money that individuals can donate to state candidates. The limits, however, are not as strict as in Vermont.

“The decision in the Vermont case was very narrowly focused,” said Arn Pearson, the national campaign reform director for Common Cause, which advocates for campaign finance reform. “There are key differences between Vermont and Maine.”

Maine allows contributions to gubernatorial candidates of $500 for both the primary and general election, for a total of $1,000 for the election cycle. The state limits contributions to legislative or county campaigns to $250 in both the primary and general election, for a total of $500. The totals are more than double Vermont’s limits.

Pearson, during his time with the Maine Citizen Leadership Fund, was part of the legal team that successfully defended Maine’s campaign finance reform laws against legal challenges.

“Vermont’s limits are per cycle, not per election like they are in Maine, which makes them lower than they appear,” Pearson said.

While Pearson said he doesn’t believe the Supreme Court ruling would affect Maine’s contribution limits, he did suggest a way to put the law on safer legal grounds.

“One of the things that got (Vermont) into trouble was not indexing their limits for inflation,” Pearson said. “The court expressed concern over shrinking contribution limits in regards to their buying power over time.”

Unlike Vermont, Maine does not have mandatory campaign spending limits. The state does have spending limits for candidates who seek public funding for their campaign under the Maine Clean Election Act. But those restrictions are voluntary and only apply to candidates who agree to them as a condition for public financing.

“The silver lining in an otherwise bad decision is that the ruling emphasizes that the only way we can get spending limits is through a voluntary public funding system,” Pearson said. “People are passionate about wanting to stop this arms race of spending.”

The Supreme Court’s decision, Pearson said, almost completely shuts the door on mandatory spending limits. That leaves two options, he said: Laws similar to Maine’s Clean Election Act, which attach voluntary limits to public campaign financing, or an amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

“The Court is behind public opinion on this,” Pearson said, citing a recent national survey that found 74 percent of voters support a voluntary system of publicly funded campaigns. “It shows how upset people are about all the scandals.”

The case is Randall v. Sorrell.

On the Web: www.supreme courtus.gov/opinions/05pdf/04-1528.pdf.