Watchdogs File in Defense of Vermont’s Disclosure Laws in 2^nd Circuit Court of Appeals

Today, the Campaign Legal Center, joined by Democracy 21, filed an amici curiae brief in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, defending the disclosure provisions and contribution limits of the State of Vermont’s campaign finance law in Vermont Right to Life Committee (VRLC) v. Sorrell.

The suit is part of a long string of challenges to state disclosure laws.

According to Democracy 21 President Fred Wertheimer:

There has been a concerted effort around the country to challenge disclosure laws in the courts. Opponents of the basic right of citizens to know who is giving and spending money to influence their votes keep challenging the constitutionality of disclosure laws and, in most cases, keep losing. The Supreme Court could not have been clearer in the Citizens United decision that disclosure requirements for outside spending groups are constitutional and necessary.

History makes clear that secret money in American politics results in scandal and corruption. The groups and lawyers, who keep challenging disclosure laws and flying in the face of consistent Supreme Court decisions, apparently are not concerned about the corrupting dangers for our democracy posed by secret money in our elections.

In recent years, the disclosure laws in nearly two dozen states have been challenged, and the vast majority of these challenges have been turned away by the courts.  More than half of these challenges have been brought by groups represented by James Bopp, the former Republican National Committeeman from Indiana who originally brought the Citizens United case exclusively as a challenge to federal disclosure laws.  Despite other aspects of the controversial decision, the Supreme Court in Citizens United turned away the disclosure challenge by an overwhelming 8-1 majority.

In addition to challenging disclosure requirements, VRLC asks the court to invalidate the state contribution limits as applied to its fund that allegedly makes only independent expenditures.  The district court, however, found that the “independent” fund was anything but independent, citing evidence that there wasa “fluidity of funds” and “no clear functional divide” between the allegedly “independent” fund and VRLC’s political committee making contributions directly to Vermont candidates.