The critical cases are already lining up to greet John Roberts once he joins the Supreme Court after his expected confirmation vote later this week. Yesterday, his future colleagues agreed to hear Vermont Republican State Committee v. Sorrell, a lawsuit stemming from Vermont’s draconian campaign finance laws. Expect oral arguments on this important First Amendment issue in January or February.

The laws at issue have been on the books since 1997, although they have never been fully enforced thanks to a string of court challenges. They set highly restrictive contribution limits of no more than $400 from a donor for a candidate for statewide office in an election cycle. They cap spending dramatically, so that persons running for governor can only spend $300,000, while candidates for some lesser offices are limited to $45,000. Worst of all, the Vermont law is intended to be mandatory for all candidates. By comparison, most laws, including those at the federal level, only apply to candidates who receive public campaign money.

Vermont’s rules represent campaign finance “reform” gone berserk, a perfect example of how far such laws can go once legislators start tinkering with the First Amendment. Once one accepts that wealth is a bad thing, that money in politics is a bad thing, reason flies out the window. Just look at the spending limits. James Jeffords spent $3 million to wage his successful reelection bid for Senate in 2000. Even with all his popularity and name recognition, the state’s self-described socialist Congressman, Bernie Sanders, felt compelled to spend $800,000 campaigning in 2004.

Yet under the law, a candidate for the top statewide office would be limited to less than half Mr. Sanders’s spending. How can anyone argue that $800,000, or even $400,000, is “corrupting,” but $300,000 is not? And yet, how can anyone avoid drawing such an arbitrary line when crafting campaign finance laws?

A lawyer for the plaintiffs in the case, James Bopp, pointed to another absurdity of these laws when we spoke to him yesterday evening. The net effect of the contribution limits and spending caps is to make the candidate a “bit player” in his own campaign. A third provision of the law, which is also challenged in this case, exacerbated this problem by counting spending of outside groups on behalf of a candidate as a contribution subject to the other limits. That might eliminate “corruption” as defined by advocates of campaign speech regulation, but it also eliminates an important part of the electoral system – any discussion of the candidates themselves.

The good news is that judicial momentum is on the side of those challenging the Vermont law. Mr. Bopp notes that the Supreme Court likely decided to hear this case because the lower courts are split on the issue. The judges who ride the 2nd United States appeals circuit and who upheld the Vermont law in 2004 seem to be in the minority. In recent years, riders of both the 6th and 10th circuits have struck down expenditure restrictions in other states and cities. In a 2000 case, the Supreme Court upheld contribution limits of $2,150 a candidate in Missouri, but the justices said that was at the low end of acceptability. In recent years, riders of the 8th and 9th circuits have struck down contribution limits of less than $1,000. That Vermont’s rules are mandatory instead of voluntary also sets them against campaign finance norms.

Despite the fact that the caption contains the word “Vermont,” this case could have national implications. The Supreme Court, fresh with a sharp legal mind in Judge Roberts and hopefully an equally sharp successor to retiring Justice O’Connor, now has a chance to start rethinking the constitutionality of the entire campaign speech regulation edifice. The sooner the better.