The last person to weigh in on Randall v. Sorrell

The Supreme Court's release of its decision in Randall v. Sorrell coincided with a fairly busy time professionally, so I was unable to post even the most brief of thoughts here. Now, I'll have the distinction of being the last attorney to comment on the case...

Rather than repeat some of the comments I've posted below, I'll focus on the bigger picture... it seems we're in a bit of a transition in the area of election law and campaign finance regulation, and it's not apparent what the ultimate outcome of this transition will be. There are many that suggest that the new members of the Court will push campaign finance jurisprudence in the direction of deregulation... towards Justices Scalia and Thomas perhaps. After reading this case, I think that may be premature.

Given the Chief Justice's bent towards stare decisis (as promised in his hearings), it seems that Buckley may have a new lease on life. As I think back in the misty corners of the early 90s (yes, THAT far back), I remember being engaged in many a conversation that derisively referred to Buckley as "that money equals speech case." Now, it seems the venerable dino that I always remember starts on page 1 of its particular volume that contains it, is being referred to by some as a "super precedent" and by others as a landmark First Amendment case. I think this is the case because both are at least somewhat true. Buckley has survived constant attempts to limit or overturn it through the decades, and it indeed does stand on First Amendment principles.

So, back to the original point... where is the Court headed? My hope is that it heads in a somewhat alternative direction... one that allows for regulation, reporting or banning of activities that are truly corruptive of our system, yet is protective of speech through association. Unfortunately, the reform community has often taken the process too far, in my opinion. In an effort to rid the system of all corruption, it has sought to federalize virtually everything, regulating activities that do not do a thing to corrupt the federal election process, all in an effort to stamp out loopholes or perceived future loopholes. In the process, we could lose out on an important area of expresion... the ability for individuals to pool their money together to express common points of view. This freedom to associate (enshrined in the First Amendment, no less) is - at its heart - campaign finance reform. The small sums of money collect to become powerful against the potentially corruptive big money that may not necessarily have community or public interest at heart. So, the direction the Court should go towards would be to embrace some form of collective speech, yet develop and maintain strong regulation of corruptive influences. Piece of cake, right?

Mental note... last paragraph's policy wish list is full of holes... More to come on this thought process in later posts.