Amidst fears that a candidate for public office could be bought for the price of an average-quality digital television, Vermont’s legislature enacted Act 64. However, the price tag was set below an acceptable retail value. In fact, the Act anticipated that candidates would sell for record-low, red-tag amounts. The Supreme Court rejected the State’s contention that higher campaign contribution levels would result in an electoral clearance sale, and reasserted that campaign finance limitations have a constitutional “lower bound.” In doing so, it declined to answer the calls of critics-from inside the judiciary and out-to refashion the structure of its campaign finance jurisprudence.

Click Here to Download Full Article…