|
to: |
Mayor and Town Council |
|
from: |
Ralph D. Karpinos, Town Attorney |
|
subject: |
Public Forum for Town Campaign Contribution Limitations and Disclosure Regulations |
|
date: |
November 13, 2006 |
The purpose of tonight’s public forum is to receive citizen comment on possible changes to the Town’s regulations on monetary contributions to candidates for Town elective office.
Town regulations presently provide limitations on the amount of money that may be contributed to candidates for Town elective office and require disclosure of the names of contributors. Attachment 1 is a copy of the current Town regulations. Key provisions include:
The Town’s current limitations were enacted in 1999 following receipt of special legislative authority from the North Carolina General Assembly.
At the time the Council enacted the current regulations seven years ago it was noted that the regulations should be reconsidered at some point to see if changes would be appropriate. Moreover, in June 2006, the Supreme Court of the United States issued an opinion, Randal v. Sorrell, providing additional guidance on the rationale needed to justify campaign contribution restrictions and on other issues related to campaign contribution limitations. The Council, on October 9, called this public forum to hear citizen comment on whether adjustments to the Town’s campaign contribution regulations should be considered.
The Vermont contribution limitations challenged in Randall v. Sorrell were as follows: statewide office, $400; state senator, $300; and state representative, $200. These limits were applicable for each two-year election cycle, which would include primary and final election contests. The Court noted that the Vermont contribution limitations were substantially lower than the limits previously upheld by the Court in other cases and observed that the limits, from a constitutional perspective, were too restrictive. It further noted that the Vermont contribution limits provide for no adjustment for inflation and therefore decline in real value each year.
(Vermont has, as of 2004, a population of 621,000. Its 150 representatives thus represent an average of about 4,100 citizens each. Its 30 state senators represent an average about 20,700 citizens each. By comparison, Chapel Hill has eight at-large Council members and approximately 50,000 citizens.)
The plurality opinion of the Court concluded that the Vermont Act “burdens First Amendment interests by threatening to inhibit effective advocacy by those who seek election, particularly challengers; its contribution limits mute the voice of political parties; they hamper participation in campaigns through volunteer activities; and they are not indexed for inflation.” The Court further noted that the State of Vermont did not present a “legitimate statutory objective that might justify these special burdens.” The Court concluded that the contribution limits in the Vermont law violate the First Amendment because they “burden First Amendment interests in a manner that is disproportionate to the public purposes they were enacted to advance.”
Although the disclosure and reporting requirements under the Vermont law were not at issue in Randall v. Sorrell, we believe that the concerns raised by the Court, in particular the lack of any indexing for inflation, also warrant the Council’s reconsideration at this time of the Town’s $20 disclosure requirement.
Attached are copies of selected analyses of the Randall v. Sorrell decision from among many that are available over the Internet. Please note that the Court’s decision also considered and found invalid Vermont’s limits on the amount that candidates may spend on their campaigns. The Town has no similar regulations, nor authority to enact such regulations, so this part of the Court’s decision is not directly relevant to the matters under consideration here.
We recommend that the Council refer public comment received this evening to the Town Attorney for consideration and the preparation of a report including any recommended adjustments to the Town’s campaign contribution regulations for the Council’s consideration at an upcoming meeting early in the next calendar year.
1. Chapter 2, Article IV, Town Code of Ordinances (p. 3).
2. October 9, 2006 Agenda report 4k (attachments are available through the Town website) (p. 4).
3. Analysis of Randall v. Sorrell by National Voting Rights Institute (p. 7).
4. ACLU News Release on Randall v. Sorrell.(p. 14).
5. Analysis of Randall v. Sorrell by Brennan Center for Justice, NYU School of Law (p. 15).