AU faculty from the Center for Democracy and Election Management (CDEM) filed a report for a Supreme Court case Feb. 7.
The case, Randall v. Sorrell, challenges Vermont's campaign finance law which limits campaign expenditures for elections. Under Vermont law, candidates for governor can only spend $300,000 on campaigns in a two-year period, according to an article in The New York Times. The law also limits contributions from state political parties to $400. Vermont's contribution ceilings are the lowest in the United States.
The Supreme Court previously ruled expenditure limits unconstitutional in the 1976 Buckley v. Valeo case. The Supreme Court decided that such laws violated freedom of speech, according to Robert Pastor, vice president of international affairs at AU.
The report was written by Pastor, John Henderson, a junior fellow at CDEM and Jamin Raskin, a professor at the Washington College of Law.
In the U.S., the effect of campaign spending limits is "still an open question," said Henderson.
Since there is little evidence in the United States, the amicus brief, a statement filed on behalf of Sorrell, studied "how other democracies that limit expenditures are doing with regard to basic freedoms," Pastor said.
The study found that "other democracies that limited campaign expenditures became free and had more competitive elections," Pastor said.
The statement said that the most democratic and economically advanced countries regulate campaign expenditures, while low-income new democracies do not. It compared countries such as New Zealand, Ireland and Australia, concluding that countries with the most competitive elections had limits on both expenditures and contributions.
A competitive race is decided by less than 10 percent of the vote, according to Henderson. The United States has few competitive races, he said.
According to studies by Freedom House, countries which limit campaign expenditures had higher political rights and civil liberties scores than those that do not.
"If the Supreme Court is persuaded and allows limitations, this will significantly diminish the influence of money in American politics and reduce prospects of corruption," Pastor said.
According to Henderson, if the case is decided in favor of Vermont's law limiting campaign expenditures, it would set a precedent for other states to regulate expenditure and a view by the Supreme Court that limitations do not violate free speech.
One reason people are in favor of limits is because candidates would not have to spend as much time fundraising and could instead devote more time to developing policies and getting to know their constituents, according to Henderson.
Although Henderson said he did not think that campaign contributions corrupt candidates, other people view the system as corrupt, which reduces the credibility of United States democracy.
"I certainly don't think taking contributions from oil companies means you'll pursue the interests of oil companies," he said, but "the perception is that you'll be tied into these interests."
Pastor said he has testified before congress, but never for the Supreme Court. "This is a very proud moment for all of us and for American University as well," he said.
