Neil Randall, et al., Petitioners, v. William H. Sorrell, et al., Respondents

Cato Amicus Brief brief, joined by the Center for Competitive Politics, the Goldwater Institute, the Institute for Justice, and the Reason Foundation

more+
less-

This brief, joined by the Center for Competitive Politics, the Goldwater Institute, the Institute for Justice, and the Reason Foundation, addresses Vermont's Act 64, the state's law restricting candidate's campaign expenditures. Vermont justifies the Act as a prop to ensure elected officials are responsive to voters. Without the Act, says Vermont, elected officials will waste time soliciting donations from wealthy organizations, time that could be used to listen to constituents. The argument makes no sense. Vermont's expenditure cap insulates incumbents from tough reelection fights and hence prevents the very ballot box competition necessary to ensure Vermont officials serve the general public.

LOADING PDF: If there are any problems, click here to download the file.

Written by:

more+
less-

Cato Institute on:

JD Supra Readers' Choice 2016 Awards
Reporters on Deadline

"My best business intelligence, in one easy email…"

Your first step to building a free, personalized, morning email brief covering pertinent authors and topics on JD Supra:

Sign up to create your digest using LinkedIn*

*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.

Already signed up? Log in here

*With LinkedIn, you don't need to create a separate login to manage your free JD Supra account, and we can make suggestions based on your needs and interests. We will not post anything on LinkedIn in your name. Or, sign up using your email address.
×
Loading...
×
×