Campaign Finance and Randall v. Sorrell: How Much is Too Much and Who Decides? The Court's Splintering Devotion to Its Own Problematic Framework

Abstract

In Randall v. Sorrell, the Court validates the aforementioned principles and further fuels the debate on its campaign finance jurisprudence. While campaign reform is a highly contentious issue in both Congress and the state legislatures, the big debate may actually be situated in the judiciary. And the big question in the big debate: Is the Buckley framework truly a superior solution and, as such, deserving of the faithful application of stare decisis, or is the outcome of Randall merely indicative of the Court's division, and consequential paralysis? There are merits to both conclusions and each will be discussed in turn.

This Note will accordingly explore the Randall decision and the reasoning that substantiates its final disposition. Part II presents some historical insight through an evaluation of relevant precedent and other issues peripheral to campaign finance. In Part III, campaign finance reform and the history of laws specific to Vermont are discussed. Part IV supplies the facts significant in Randall, and Part V provides a comprehensive analysis of the Court's plurality, concurring, and dissenting opinions. Part VI offers a glimpse of the legal and societal implications of Randall, touching the current state of the law. Finally, concluding remarks can be found in Part VII.