Randall v. Sorrel

548 U.S. 230 (2006)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

Vermont enacted a campaign finance law that imposed mandatory expenditure limits on the total amount a candidate for state office can spend during a “two-year general election cycle.” Expenditures over $50 made on a candidate’s behalf by others count against the candidate’s expenditure limit if those expenditures are “intentionally facilitated by, solicited by or approved by” the candidate’s campaign. The amount any single individual can contribute to the campaign of a candidate for state office during a “two-year general election cycle” is limited as well. A political committee is subject to these same limits. Randall (Ps) are individuals who have run for state office in Vermont, citizens who vote in Vermont elections and contribute to Vermont campaigns, and political parties and committees that participate in Vermont politics. Ps sued Sorrell (Ds), state officials charged with enforcement of the Act. The District Court agreed that the Act’s expenditure limits violate the First Amendment. It held unconstitutional the Act’s limits on the contributions of political parties to candidates. It found the Act’s other contribution limits constitutional. Both sides appealed. The Second Circuit held that all of the Act’s contribution limits are constitutional. It also held that the Act’s expenditure limits may be constitutional. The Circuit then remanded the case to the District Court with instructions to determine whether the Act’s expenditure limits were narrowly tailored to those interests. The Supreme Court granted certiorari.