Libertarian ping! To be added or removed from my ping list freepmail me or post a message here.
Posted on 12/21/2006 3:27:18 PM PST by Jim Robinson
Today the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia held that the ban on corporate electioneering communications is unconstitutional as applied to the three grassroots lobbying ads for which Wisconsin Right to Life ("WRTL") sought judicial relief in WRTL v. FEC. Judge Leon wrote the opinion and was joined by Judge Sentelle in the majority of the three-judge court.
The ads were run in 2004 when WRTL did radio and television ads urging people in Wisconsin to contact Senator Kohl and Senator Feingold and ask them to oppose the ongoing filibusters of President Bush's judicial nominees. Because Senator Feingold was a candidate, WRTL had to stop running its ads when the electioneering communication prohibition period began. WRTL sought judicial relief to continue running its ads, which was denied at the time.
Today the District Court first decided that the grassroots lobbying ads were not the functional equivalent of express advocacy, as the U.S. Supreme Court had required in its analysis in McConnell v. FEC (which upheld the electioneering communication only against a facial challenge). Second, the District Court held that the FEC had not met its burden of proving that the prohibition was narrowly tailored to a compelling state interest as applied to the ads. So the Court held that the prohibition was unconstitutional as applied to these ads.
James Bopp, Jr., attorney for WRTL comments: "This is a victory for the right of the people to lobby their members of Congress on upcoming votes even if there is a pending election. This grassroots lobbying is simply self-government at work, which is protected by the First Amendment."
The opinion is available on the district court's website at http://www.dcd.uscourts.gov/opinions/district-court-2006.html.
James Bopp, Jr. has a national campaign finance and election law practice. He is General Counsel for the James Madison Center for Free Speech.
PRESS RELEASE
November 14, 2006
Contact: James Bopp, Jr.
Phone 812/232-2434; Fax 812/235-3685
jboppjr@aol.com
It was my pleasure, txrangerette and hopefully those powerful days are behind him. A very Merry Christmas to you and yours.
Great maybe the Supremes can revisit this anti-freespeech law
Yes, there are more than a few things to clean up if we ever get the court back from the liberal inventors of new rules. The mess goes all the way back to Oliver Wendell Holmes, IMHO. He was the one who came up with the idea that the law means whatever those in power think it should mean.
It's still an abomination. What part of "Congress shall make no law" is so FReeking hard to understand?
About time.
It can't, by definition a District Court, nor an Appeals Court, can overturn a Supreme Court decision. They can "work around" it, "reinterpret it", or say it doesn't cover this case (which is what they seem to have done in this instance), but they can't overturn it.
Theoretically even the Supreme Court is not supposed to outright overturn earlier decisions of Constitutional application, at that level, absent a Constitutional Amendment. However they do it as it pleases them.
Libertarian ping! To be added or removed from my ping list freepmail me or post a message here.
On to the Supreme Court and an end to CFR.
Not only free speech, but the 1st Amendment specifically recognizes our right to "petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
Yep. It is anti-American.
Great news!
Excellent!
Well, McCain will have to crawl out of this one. A Christmas present from the court.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.