|
Unlimited
Campaign Spending Unfair to Communities of Color and the Poor,
Charges Amicus Brief by Equal Justice Society
SAN
FRANCISCO (Feb. 10, 2006) — 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
on Wednesday filed an amicus curiae brief in the United States
Supreme Court in Randall v. Sorrell, a Vermont case that
addresses the constitutionality of mandatory campaign spending
limits in state campaigns.
NAACP,
Ella Baker Center For Human Rights, Latino Issues Forum, Greenlining
Institute, Asian American Justice Center, Center For Governmental
Studies, California Clean Money Campaign, Coalition For Economic
Equity and California Women's Agenda joined EJS in filing the
brief.
Martin
R. Glick of Howard Rice Nemerovski Canady Falk & Rabkin is
serving as the counsel of record and led a team of Howard Rice
attorneys in drafting the brief on behalf of amici.
The
Randall case provides 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. Randall 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 from a landmark decision in August of 2004 by the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit upholding 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.
The
EJS amicus brief uses 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. EJS argues 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.
EJS's
participation in this case reflects the organization's 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
brief is available for download here.
-30-
|
