In 1976, the Supreme Court issued a ruling that equated money with speech, and since then, hopefuls for public office haven't looked back. The Buckley v. Valeo decision did away with spending limits for candidates seeking office—and assured that the person with the most money would win, time and time again. But some states and towns have realized that spending limits work—and even encourage political participation. Now's the time, says Stuart Comstock-Gay, for the Court to realize it too.
Stuart Comstock-Gay is executive director of the National Voting Rights Institute .
There was once a time in American politics when people without huge bank accounts could reasonably attempt to run for office. Hard to believe, but true. Unfortunately, it simply ain’t so anymore. Since a 1976 Supreme Court decision equated money with speech, money in politics has exploded.
Two lawsuits may change that. Both involve campaign spending limits—not contribution limits, but spending limits. One is on its way to the Supreme Court. This week, the City of Albuquerque and the National Voting Rights Institute are asking the Court to review and uphold Albuquerque’s spending limits law—a law that had been in place for over 20 years, and through that time encouraged a flowering of democratic participation.
So how did we get here? Why, in the midst of all the discussion about campaign reform, has there been no real discussion of campaign spending limits?
In 1974, Congress passed a campaign-reform law that included, among other things, campaign spending limits for congressional elections. Two years later, in Buckley v. Valeo , the Supreme Court upheld some of the law, but struck down the spending limits, saying that Congress had provided no rationale for believing spending limits were necessary, and that, without that rationale, spending should be unlimited.
Three decades later, the evidence is in. Campaign spending has skyrocketed. Thirty-years ago, House races cost $100,000; they now cost close to $900,000. Senate races cost more than $5 million. In 2002, 94 percent of the candidates that raised the most money won their Congressional races. Is this really the way to run a democracy? Shouldn’t the democratic process provide meaningful access to a wide variety of ideas and citizens, not just those with money? Is it realistic today to think that a schoolteacher, nurse or truck driver can run a competitive campaign for office?
Because of the Supreme Court’s ruling in 1976—based in part, remember, on the fact that no evidence was presented suggesting spending limits were needed—jurisdictions just haven’t considered spending limits. Contribution limits have received considerable attention, and laws have passed to restrict contributions. But the arms race goes on and on.
Two jurisdictions, however, went ahead and did something about spending limits.
In 1974, Albuquerque voters approved—by a 90 percent vote—an amendment to the city charter that included limits on campaign spending for the mayoral and City Council races. For more than 20 years, the city operated under that law—with no court challenge—and proved it can work. During that time, incumbents did not have to build huge war chests to deter electoral competition, and challengers were far more successful in taking on incumbents than in other cities. With limits on spending, elected officials were able to spend time talking to citizens and doing the job they were elected to do, rather than spending their time dialing for dollars to fund their campaigns.
Earlier this year, the 10th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals ruled that the Albuquerque law runs counter to the Supreme Court’s 1976 decision, and may not be enforced. This is the decision being appealed.
Meanwhile, the state legislature of Vermont, in 1997, decided they too wanted to prevent money from dominating their elections, and passed spending limits laws (coupled with public financing) for state campaigns. Republican Sen. Bill Doyle said at the time, “Vermont has never stood around waiting for something to happen. This state has taken the lead on many issues. Vermont was the first state to abolish slavery . . . . The bill before us today puts Vermont in the lead on campaign finance reform.”
And indeed it did put Vermont in the lead. But due to a series of lawsuits, the law never came fully into effect. But in August, the 2nd Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals said that spending limits may indeed be constitutional—that they can be passed to protect against corruption and the appearance of corruption, and to protect the time of candidates and officeholders. It’s hard to overstate the importance of this decision. For the first time since 1976, a federal appeals court has offered a new analysis of spending limits. The Vermont case trails Albuquerque by a bit, but it too is likely to see the Supreme Court before long.
And wouldn’t it be something if the Court finally recognized that reasonable spending limits would indeed encourage political participation, not limit it? That reasonable limits would broaden the debate, not narrow it? That limits would prevent corruption, and free up the time of legislators to be, well, legislators rather than fundraisers? Reasonable campaign spending limits should be a tool in rebuilding American democracy. The Court can make it so again.
