|
Positions and Views on Other Issues where Information is Available: |
|
|
| Government |
Positions and Views |
| Government, a General Statement |
Reed: No Response |
| Government Reform, a General Statement |
Reed: Supreme Court to Hear Arguments in Campaign Spending Limits Case
Thursday, March 9, 2006
WASHINGTON, DC – The United States Supreme Court is set to hold oral arguments in the case Randall v. Sorrell, revisiting the 1976 Buckley v. Valeo ruling that sanctioned today’s system of unlimited campaign spending.
In June of 2005, U.S. Senator Jack Reed (D-RI) was joined by several United States Senators in sending an amicus brief to the Supreme Court requesting that it take up the case, and, in September of last year, the Court agreed to do so.
The Second Circuit US Court of Appeals, based in Manhattan, ruled that mandatory campaign spending limits in Vermont may be permissible under the United States Constitution. Vermont’s state legislature passed mandatory limits in 1997.
Earlier this month, Reed filed a bipartisan amicus merits brief with the U.S. Supreme Court on behalf of several United States Senators and Congressmen in support of campaign spending limits, arguing that the decision of the Second Circuit should be affirmed.
U.S. Senator Jack Reed (D-RI) stated, “Campaign finance reform is an important part of reinvigorating the public’s faith and participation in the political process. Such reforms can be enacted without infringing upon First Amendment rights and without stifling the public debate essential to the functioning of our democracy.”
After losing in the Second Circuit, plaintiffs in Randall v. Sorrell petitioned for Supreme Court review. They argue that under Buckley v. Valeo, which equated money with speech, spending limits cannot be upheld under the First Amendment.
The National Voting Rights Institute, which represents the responders, who are in favor of spending limits, has been at the forefront of efforts to revisit Buckley for more than a decade and also urged the Supreme Court to take this case. Respondents are arguing that the decision of the Second Circuit should be affirmed.
Source: Candidate Website Date: 10/02/2004 |
| Government Agencies, a General Statement |
Reed: No Response |
| States' Rights |
Reed: No Response |
| Influence of Special Interests |
Reed: No Response |
| Lobbying Reform |
Reed: No Response |
| Reporting of Lobbyist Contacts |
Reed: No Response |
| Government Ethics |
Reed: No Response |
| Government Officials Becoming Lobbyists |
Reed: No Response |
| Executive Branch Employees Accepting Corporate Gifts |
Reed: No Response |
| Earmarks |
Reed: No Response |
| Bureaucracy |
Reed: No Response |
| Privatization |
Reed: No Response |
| Sunset Clauses |
Reed: No Response |
| Freedom of Information Act |
Reed: No Response |
| Citizen Participation |
Reed: No Response |
| Availability of Government Information |
Reed: No Response |
| Live Broadcasts of Agency Deliberations |
Reed: No Response |
| Regulatory Relief |
Reed: No Response |
| Single 6 Year Term for US President |
Reed: No Response |
| Term Limits for Supreme Court & Federal Justices |
Reed: No Response |
| Term Limits for US Representatives and Senators |
Reed: No Response |
| FEMA and Hurricane Katrina |
Reed: No Response |
| New Orleans |
Reed: No Response |
| U.S. Postal Service |
Reed: No Response |