Feb. 28 (Bloomberg) -- Several U.S. Supreme Court justices expressed skepticism about Vermont's limits on campaign contributions and spending, the strictest in the nation.

The justices heard a free-speech challenge to a 1997 Vermont law that limits contributions to as little as $200 per election cycle for each candidate, and caps spending as low as $2,000 for state representative candidates. The state says the limits are needed to prevent corruption and keep candidates from having to spend a large amount of their time on fund raising.

The case offers the justices in Washington a chance to revise their landmark 1976 Buckley v. Valeo decision, which allowed federal limits on campaign contributions while throwing out the law's cap on spending. In that decision, the court said spending limits would reduce the amount of political expression.

``You're not talking about money here. You're talking about speech,'' Justice Antonin Scalia told attorney Brenda Wright, who defended Vermont's spending limit. Vermont is saying, ``We the state are going to tell you how much you should campaign. That is very unusual in an American democracy,'' Scalia said.

Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. questioned Vermont Attorney General William H. Sorrell's assertion that campaign money buys access and ``on the bad days it buys influence.''

``Can you give me one example of an official who took a position because of ties'' to a campaign contributor, Roberts asked. Earlier, though, Scalia told James Bopp, the lawyer for the groups challenging the law, ``You expect them to name names? That's a lot to ask.''

At the Polls

Roberts suggested that if voters believed politicians were unduly influenced by campaign contributors, they could ``act accordingly at the polls.''

Vermont's contribution limits are $200 for state House campaigns, $300 for state Senate races and $400 for statewide offices. The spending limits range from $2,000 for some state representative candidates to $300,000 for those running for governor.

Justice Stephen G. Breyer suggested the limits would give incumbents a ``tremendous advantage.''

``Why aren't these limits far too low?'' Breyer asked. ``At what point do these become so low that they really as a significant matter shut off the possibility of a challenge?''

The justices particularly questioned the limit on campaign spending, which would apply whether a candidate had to run first in a primary or not.

Primary Campaign

Scalia and Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and David H. Souter suggested that challengers would be especially disadvantaged if they had to spend money in a primary campaign and then run in the general election against an incumbent who had no primary opposition.

The Vermont Republican State Committee and the Vermont Right to Life Committee are leading the challenge to the law. Backers of the law include the Democratic National Committee, led by Howard Dean, who as Vermont governor signed the law, and a bipartisan set of current and former lawmakers featuring Republican Senator John McCain of Arizona.

In 2000 the Supreme Court upheld Missouri's contribution limit of $2,150 per election cycle. Two members of the 6-3 majority -- the late Chief Justice William Rehnquist and retired Justice Sandra Day O'Connor -- have since been replaced by Roberts and Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr.

The three dissenters in the Missouri case, Scalia and Justices Anthony M. Kennedy and Clarence Thomas, said the Buckley ruling's approval of contribution limits should be overturned.

Justice Alito

Alito kept mostly silent today, though he asked whether candidates in Vermont could run effective campaigns if the state kept its limits on contributions but didn't limit spending.

In the Vermont case, the New York-based 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the contribution limits and said the Buckley ruling left open the possibility that a campaign spending limit could be upheld.

The court said Vermont had legitimate aims of preventing corruption and protecting the time of candidates and officials, though it said a lower court should consider whether the spending limits were the least restrictive way to achieve those goals.

Ginsburg, Souter and Justice John Paul Stevens asked Bopp whether he was arguing that there could never be a limit on campaign spending.

``That is not our position,'' Bopp said, though he said he couldn't suggest a circumstance in which a limit would be justified.

A decision is expected by July. The cases are Randall v. Sorrell, 04-1528, Vermont State Republican State Committee v. Sorrell, 04-1530, and Sorrell v. Randall, 04-1697.

To contact the reporter on this story: Laurie Asseo in Washington at lasseo1@bloomberg.net.

Last Updated: February 28, 2006 13:44 EST