As usual, the campaign finance area generates another messy opinion from the Supreme Court. By a vote of 6-3,
the court struck down the Vermont regulations on donations and spending. Notably, the opinion came from Justice Breyer, who has normally (including in his book) been a fan of campaign finance reform.
I'll try and update this as I get a chance to review the opinions and such, but am quite busy today. I'm sure other lawyer-types will chime in.
Also interesting--5 decisions remain for the term (most prominent being the Texas redistricting case). Wednesday will be the next (and possibly last) decision day of the term. Breakdown of opinions on the flip.
4 opinions for the majority:
Lead opinion--Breyer, joined by Roberts and largely by Alito: Buckley v. Valeo still good law, setting boundaries for regulation. These regulations control, and as this flunks Buckley, must be overruled.
Alito--An interesting and short opinion basically saying "stare decisis prevents us from looking at overruling Buckley here." This may be an interesting indicator in the Roe-related cases.
Kennedy--Given precedent, judgment is right, but I'm still trying to figure this mess out.
Thomas and Scalia--The part of Buckley v. Valeo saying "some regulations are OK" should be overruled, making any regulations unconstitutional.
The dissents:
Stevens--The part of Buckley v. Valeo limiting the ability to regulate should be overruled, and this would pass that test.
Souter (joined by Ginsberg and largely Stevens)--Buckley should be read in a limited fashion. The case should be remanded for further factfinding to determine whether the regulations pass Buckley scrutiny.
I think Roberts and Alito's votes here are interesting. They did not join the Thomas/Scalia block, but instead joined Breyer's attempt at line-drawing.