SUBSCRIBE
Getting this forwarded from a friend? Subscribe to get our newsletter delivered directly to you!

IN THIS ISSUE

Front Page

Ms. Paterson Goes to Washington

Statewide Coalition Forms to Keep Extremists Off the Federal Bench

Notes on the Right: Extraordinary Circumstances: The Assault on the Judiciary

Linking Progressive Corporate Law with Social Justice Movements: A "First of Its Kind" Conference

EJS Amicus Brief Charges Unlimited Campaign Spending
Unfair to Communities of Color and the Poor

The Big Money Behind Ward Connerly

Law Review Summaries: Affirmative Action

Staff/Board News and Notes

Newsletter Editors:
Elaine Elinson
Joe Lucero

Email Feedback

EJS Amicus Brief Charges Unlimited Campaign Spending Unfair to Communities of Color and the Poor

By Susan K. Serrano, Research Director

Arguing that the absence of campaign spending limits severely restricts access of minority and low-income communities to the political process, the Equal Justice Society will file an amicus curiae brief in June in the United States Supreme Court in Landell v. Sorrell, a Vermont case that addresses the constitutionality of mandatory campaign spending limits in state campaigns.

The Landell case will provide the U.S. Supreme Court yet another opportunity to reconsider its 1976 ruling in Buckley v. Valeo, which held that the First Amendment allows unlimited spending on political campaigns.  Landell has the potential to change the nature of elections at all levels of government and to enhance democracy and equal representation for all communities. 

This case stems won a landmark decision in August of 2004 from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, which upheld Vermont’s mandatory campaign spending caps, ruling that the limits are not automatically barred by the First Amendment under Buckley.  The Court ruled that Vermont had established two compelling interests to justify its campaign spending limits: “preventing the reality and appearance of corruption and protecting the time of candidates and elected officials.”  The court remanded the case to the lower court to determine whether there were less restrictive means for Vermont to accomplish these goals.

Our amicus brief will use both legal and social science research to illustrate that the lack of reasonable limits on campaign spending has negatively impacted the civil rights of poor and minority communities and deprived these communities of an effective voice in our democracy.  We argue that limits on campaign spending will both help to ensure effective representation and equal access to the political system and help to open the doors of government to groups often in most need—people of color and the poor. 

Our participation in this case reflects our belief that, like the attorneys and social scientists in Brown v. Board of Education who eliminated the “separate but equal” doctrine, we can advance innovative legal strategies and collaborative approaches to public policy for enduring social change. 

The amicus brief is being filed on behalf of the NAACP, the Fannie Lou Hamer Project, the National Asian Pacific American Legal Consortium, the Equal Justice Society, the National Bar Association, the Latino Issues Forum and the Greenlining Institute.

In 2004, we participated in a similar case with an amicus brief in City of Albuquerque v. Homans  (PDF link).