## Facts

- New York authorized its State Board of Elections to issue and enforce a “Fair Campaign Code” regulating campaign speech during elections.
- The Code barred various forms of campaign communications, including: attacks based on race, sex, religion, or ethnicity; “misrepresentation” of a candidate’s qualifications (including “personal vilification” and “scurrilous attacks”); “misrepresentation” of a candidate’s position; and “misrepresentation” of party affiliation or endorsement.
- Roy G. Vanasco and Joseph Ferris, candidates for the New York State Assembly, and Robert I. Postel, a candidate for the New York City Council, challenged the Code and its authorizing statute on First and Fourteenth Amendment grounds.
- The Board found Vanasco violated the Code by distributing materials describing himself as “Republican–Liberal” without being the Liberal Party’s candidate.
- The Board found Ferris violated the Code by allegedly misrepresenting an opponent’s voting record.
- The Board ordered surrender of the materials and issuance of corrected materials; the candidates complied before suing.
- A three-judge federal district court heard the constitutional challenge and the Supreme Court later summarily affirmed the judgment.

## Issues

1. Whether New York’s authorizing statute and Fair Campaign Code provisions regulating campaign “misrepresentations” and certain “attacks” violate the First Amendment as applied through the Fourteenth Amendment.
2. Whether the State may vest an administrative agency with authority to investigate campaign speech and order corrective measures based on determinations of “misrepresentation,” “vilification,” or discriminatory attacks.

## Decision

- The three-judge district court declared unconstitutional the challenged statute and Code provisions regulating campaign “misrepresentations” and related speech restrictions.
- The court enjoined enforcement of the invalidated provisions.
- The Supreme Court summarily affirmed, leaving the district court’s judgment in place.

## Legal Principles

- Political campaign speech receives the highest First Amendment protection; content-based restrictions on such speech are subject to exacting scrutiny.
- Vague and overbroad standards (e.g., “misrepresentation,” “personal vilification,” “scurrilous attacks”) impermissibly chill protected speech by giving officials open-ended discretion and making compliance unpredictable.
- An administrative regime empowering government officials to police campaign “truth” and order withdrawal or correction of campaign materials operates as an unconstitutional censorship mechanism akin to a prior restraint.
- Even when the State asserts interests in protecting voters from deception or candidates from unfair tactics, regulation must be narrowly tailored; broad, preventive administrative controls are constitutionally suspect where traditional post-publication judicial remedies are available.
- A prohibition on campaign “attacks” defined by race, sex, religion, or ethnicity is unconstitutional when framed as a broad, viewpoint- and content-based restriction on political expression rather than fitting within a recognized category of unprotected speech.

## Conclusion

The court held that New York could not constitutionally enforce a “fair campaign” system that broadly restricted campaign communications through vague, content-based standards and administrative orders compelling withdrawal or correction of speech, and it enjoined the challenged provisions as inconsistent with the First and Fourteenth Amendments.


Vanasco v. Schwartz, 401 F. Supp. 87 (E.D.N.Y. 1975), aff’d mem., 423 U.S. 1041 (1976)