The Newer Incoherence: Competition, Social Science, and Balancing in Campaign Finance Law After Randall v. Sorrell

This Article considers the Supreme Court's recent decision in Randall v.Sorrell striking down Vermont's campaign expenditure and contribution limits.The Supreme Court's campaign finance jurisprudence before Randall was marked by swings in doctrine and general incoherence.At first glance, the plurality opinion in Randall appears to add a level of coherence to campaign finance law by judging the constitutionality of such laws through an assessment of the relationship between campaign contribution limits and political competition.Alas, the appearance of coherence is illusory, and there is little reason to believe Randall marks a significant move by the Court to embrace the political markets approach.