• SUPPORT CATO
• FOR STUDENTS
• FOR MEDIA
• FREE NEWSLETTERS

• HOME

• ABOUT

• BLOG

• CATO STORE

• CENTERS & PROJECTS

• EVENTS

• EXPERTS

• MULTIMEDIA

• PUBLICATIONS

Books

Reviews & Journals

Public Filings

Policy Studies

Opinion & Commentary

• RESEARCH AREAS

• SPEAKERS BUREAU

• SUPPORT CATO

December 14, 2005
Legal Briefs

Randall v. Sorrell

by Erik Jaffe

PRINT PAGE

CITE THIS

  Sans Serif

  Serif

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.