Welcome, I'm Anastasia Glova bringing you the Cato Daily Podcast.

Full and edited versions of our podcasts are available on our website at

W.W. Kato.org

On Monday, the Supreme Court struck down a Vermont campaign finance law finding its

severe limits on expenditures and contributions unconstitutional. Here to discuss the meaning of the decision and the controversy over campaign finance is Cato

founder and President Edward Crane.

Monday's decision is a major victory for free speech isn't it?

Yes it is. The Vermont laws were draconian in the limits on both contributions and

expenditures and the Supremes voted 6- three to strike it down on constitutional grounds so that is a great

victory for free expression, free speech in the First Amendment.

In the decision in Randall v Sorrell is it clear on what to do in future cases where the facts are slightly different?

It is not clear. Justice Kennedy himself said, and he was in the majority, that the decision would probably make it more convoluted in the future in terms of campaign finance jurisprudence.

You had some clear-cut decisions in the majority Scalia and Thomas both said that we should revisit Buckley v Vallejo and reconsider the contribution limits in that case. Actually Stevens in dissent said he

wanted to revisit Buckley too but for the wrong reason he wants to impose spending

limits. It's interesting a lot of people don't realize this but the original

amendments to the 1974 Federal Election Campaign Act that Buckley v. Vallejo

addressed included contribution limits of $100,000 per congressional district.

They were struck down and an incongruous decision.

The Supreme said that spending limits offended the First Amendment, but the contribution

limits did not, as though the two were unrelated. Obviously, the less money you can raise,

the less money you can spend. So at Cato we'd like to see Buckley revisited but

for the purpose of essentially getting rid of it.

...