David Primo and Jeff Milyo have this Roll Call oped (paid subscription required), which begins: “The imminent Supreme Court decision in Randall v. Sorrell –the closely watched dispute over the permissibility of highly restrictive campaign spending and contribution limits in Vermont– presents an opportunity to address the disconnect between scholarly research and the conventional wisdom about campaign finance reform. In short, the most current and best scientific evidence flies in the face of the promises made by reform advocates, and more disturbingly, it reveals that the court jurisprudence upholding campaign finance laws is built on a shaky empirical foundation.” The oped is largely in response to an oped by Deborah Goldberg last week in the same newspaper.
The authors reference their recent article in the Election Law Journal, as well as other scholarly work. They write: “In fact, we are aware of no scholarly studies that yield consistent evidence of large and statistically significant effects of campaign finance regulations on electoral competitiveness. Yet in her op-ed, Goldberg misuses some of our own recent research to argue that the Supreme Court needn’t be concerned that Vermont’s low contribution limits may harm electoral competition.”