Federal courts reviewing McCain-Feingold
by Joseph P. Tartaro
Executive Editor
The ground rules for voter education campaigns by pro- and anti-gun organizations may change before the 2010 congressional elections due to several court challenges to current campaign financing limits established under the controversial McCain-Feingold bill.
The suits have been brought by other parties.
The Supreme Court heard arguments on Sept. 9 over whether government limits on corporate and union political spending violate free-speech rights, in a case that could prove pivotal in a long-standing constitutional debate.
The Wall Street Journal (WSJ) reported the court gave no explanation for scheduling the unusual Summer oral argument a month before the customary start of its new term on the first Monday in October. It was seen as a signal that the conservative majority could be ready to strike down key aspects of the 2002 McCain-Feingold campaign-finance law and supporting precedents that are the foundations for current restrictions on corporate and union election spending.
Corporations, unions and advocacy groups have long faced limits on direct contributions to political campaigns. The first restrictions on such spending by corporations go back more than a century and were enacted to limit what sponsors considered corrupting influences on the political marketplace.
The current case before the high court was brought by Citizens United, a conservative advocacy group that produced a feature-length movie critical of then-Sen. Hillary Clinton, who was seeking the Democratic presidential nomination. The Federal Election Commission (FEC) classified “Hillary: The Movie” as an “electioneering communication.”
The oral arguments turned in part on the competition between free-speech rights and concerns about the rights of corporate shareholders.
Meanwhile, a three-judge panel of the US Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit has overturned campaign finance reform regulations in a ruling on Sept. 18 that will make it easier for independent political groups to raise and spend money to influence elections, if the decision is not overturned on appeal.
The Washington Post reported that a three-judge panel struck down regulations intended to blunt the power of such organizations, including the controversial Swift Boat Veterans for Truth and MoveOn.org, which drew heavy criticism for spending tens of millions of dollars on aggressive advertisements during the 2004 presidential campaign.
The Post said that “the ruling, if it stands, could provide a boost to Republicans and their allies as they try to win back Congress in 2010 and the White House in 2012. Outside conservative groups could become particularly important in countering the fundraising juggernaut of President Obama, who shattered records by raising over $750 million during his 2008 campaign.”
Experts suggested that the court’s decision could provide a boon to groups tapping into the fervor of anti-Obama activity and “tea party” events such as those demonstrated by the massive turnout on Capitol Hill on Sept. 12.
The groups “are now free to accept unlimited contributions, to spend unlimited funds independently supporting or opposing federal candidates,” said Richard L. Hasen, a professor at Loyola Law School in Los Angeles and an election law expert, contacted by The Post. “One of the things we know about outside groups, as opposed to political parties, is that they run more negative ads. . . . .”
The decision by the appellate court panel came in a lawsuit brought by Emily’s List, a nonprofit political organization that backs female Democratic candidates who support abortion rights.
Return to Archive Index