Saying 'no' to Vermont

STATES ARE the laboratories of democracy unless someone in Washington doesn't like what's in the test tube.

Yesterday, the US Supreme Court struck down a Vermont law that attempted to bring some sanity to the financing of political campaigns. It was a disappointing decision, especially at a time when the corrosive effect of money on politics is apparent in headlines nearly every day.

One troubling aspect of the ruling was the contention by Justice Stephen Breyer that the spending limits contained in the 1997 Vermont law -- $300,000 for gubernatorial candidates and smaller amounts for other office seekers -- and the contribution limits of as little as $200 for state representative races were ``disproportionately severe." How does he know? Aren't Vermont's legislators and courts best situated to determine what makes for a healthy campaign in Vermont?

Breyer even remarked that the Vermont law was so strict that it ``could itself prove an obstacle to the very electoral fairness it seeks to promote." It is true that contribution and spending limits set excessively low can help incumbents by muzzling challengers, even as free-wheeling no-limit campaigns help incumbents, who generally raise more money than challengers. But how do Breyer and a hodge podge of colleagues in Washington know the proper balance for Vermont? Paul Burns, executive director of Vermont-PIRG, which supported the law, said, ``We spend less on elections and we like it that way."

In truth, Breyer performed a balancing act of his own on the court, preserving the landmark 1976 ruling in Buckley v. Valeo as stare decisis, or established law. The Buckley decision said legal spending limits were an unconstitutional infringement on free speech, but campaign contributions could be regulated because excessive donations could be corrupt. Based on the six different opinions handed down yesterday, and on previous cases, it appears three justices would like to override Buckley to eliminate most of the restrictions that still exist, while three would like to tighten restrictions.

Preserving Buckley is worthwhile, but the toxic impact of money on politics will now continue, with scandals piling on one another and the voters increasingly marginalized with few if any choices on election day, while the monied interests continue to get what they pay for.

Unless -- unless -- voters take matters into their own hands. Slowly, public financing, under which candidates get public campaign money if they agree voluntarily to limit their contributions and expenditures, is proving itself in several states. Maine and Arizona have led the way, and California voters will have a chance to adopt such a system this November. It is now the voters' best choice.