Vermont Campaign Limits Get Cool Reception at Court

Vermont Campaign Limits Get Cool Reception at Court
By LINDA GREENHOUSE
Published: March 1, 2006

WASHINGTON, Feb. 28 — The Supreme Court displayed little appetite on Tuesday for making basic changes in its approach to campaign finance law, under which the government may place limits on political contributions but not on a candidate's spending.

Vermont's aggressive effort to drive much private money out of politics, through a law it enacted in 1997 that set tight limits on both contributions and expenditures, appeared unlikely to withstand the court's scrutiny after an argument that included a low-key but withering cross-examination by Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. of Vermont's attorney general, William H. Sorrell.

The chief justice challenged the attorney general's assertion that money was a corrupting influence on Vermont's political system, the state's main rationale for its law. "How many prosecutions for political corruption have you brought?" he asked the state official.
(snip/...)

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/01/politics/politicsspecial1/01campaign.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all&oref=slogin

from all sides of the SCOTUS bench. Some of the queries quoted in this NYTimes article portray a non-convinced bench. It was Sorrell's first time arguing b4 SCOTUS. He was well prepared but after reading the state's brief I was surprised that it was written w/o appropriate legal backup material overall. But, then, again, so goes the first amendment's free speech case law progeny . . . the Court's decisions are all over the board making legal presentations/arguments just as arbitrary sounding.