NVRI

What We Do

Buckley v. Valeo

Since the Supreme Court struck federal campaign spending limits in the 1976 Buckley v. Valeo decision, 424 U.S. 1 (1976), reform opponents have maintained that the ruling makes spending limits forever unconstitutional. Unfortunately, in June of 2006, the Court reaffirmed much of its Buckley decision in a case surrounding Vermont's comprehensive campaign finance reform - Randall v. Sorrell. You can read more about that decision in this special section of NVRI's website. NVRI had long argued that Buckley was decided on a limited factual record, and that the case leaves the door open for courts to consider new state interests that justify spending limits. A quarter century of skyrocketing spending and deepening public cynicism have paved the way for Buckley to be reexamined. In the 2006 case, however, the Court continued to find spending limits unconstitutional. To read more about this case, click here.

In addition to the Vermont case, NVRI has previously defended spending limits laws in Albuquerque, the City of Cincinnati, and for Ohio judicial elections. The links below provide more information on those cases. In a similar case, NVRI has defended spending limits at the University of Montana. That link is also below.

 

 

Read More About NVRI's Cases Defending Campaign Spending Limits & Challenging Buckley v. Valeo:

ONGOING LITIGATION

• University of Montana's Student Government Elections: (Flint v. Dennison)

PREVIOUS LITIGATION

• Vermont's Campaign Spending Limits in the U.S. Supreme Court: Randall v. Sorrell
• Albuquerque's Municipal Elections: (Homans v. City of Albuquerque) &
  (Rue v. City of Albuquerque)
• Cincinnati's City Council Elections: (Kruse v. City of Cincinnati)
• Ohio's Judicial Elections: (Suster v. Marshall)