BNA reports (paid subscription required) that the Second Circuit has denied en banc review in Landell v. Vermont Public Interest Research Group. A three-judge panel had held that Vermont’s mandatory spending limits in campaigns could be justified by a compelling interest in protecting the time of elected officials as well as to prevent corruption and its appearance, putting it in apparent direct conflict with the Supreme Court’s 1976 opinion in Buckley v. Valeo. The Supreme Court recently denied cert in a case involving the Albuquerque spending limit law (Homans). In that case, the 10th Circuit held spending limits unconstitutional, and I predicted a denial there. Here, the unprecedented decision to hold such limits constitutional certainly will attract at least some of the Justices to hearing the case.
As I noted here, the main hurdle for review of Landell is procedural: the case is being remanded to the district court to see if Vermont can actually prove that its law is supported by the compelling interests it asserts. The Court could choose to wait to see what happens below, perhaps with the thought that upon further review the spending limits issue will go away. But that would still leave the existing Second Circuit opinion holding that spending limits may be justified in some cases by compelling interests.