Supreme Court Hears Challenge to Campaign Finance Law (McCain-Feingold)

AP / Fox News ^ | 06/25/2007 | EagleUSA

[EagleUSA]

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court is taking up a key element of the landmark McCain-Feingold campaign finance law in a challenge to the constitutionality of restrictions on pre-election issue ads that mention a candidate by name.

Last year a lower court relaxed the law's restrictions on issue ads that are run by corporations, labor unions and other special interest groups in the final weeks of a campaign.

The court sided with Wisconsin Right to Life, an anti-abortion group that had sought to run ads during the 2004 campaign, asking voters to contact the state's two senators, Democrats Russ Feingold and Herb Kohl, and urge them not to filibuster President Bush's judicial nominees.

But because Feingold was up for re-election, the group could not run the ads in the final stretch of the campaign, under a provision of McCain-Feingold that prohibits interest groups from running corporate-funded radio and TV ads that mention a candidate's name within 30 days of a primary or 60 days of a general election.

In oral arguments before the Supreme Court on Wednesday, Wisconsin Right to Life was to assert that McCain-Feingold unfairly restricts its free-speech rights. In its decision in December, a federal appeals court ruled that groups may mention candidates by name in ads as long as they are trying

[EagleUSA]

Will the SCOTUS uphold the First Amendment ???

[raccoonradio]

CNN: “The Supreme Court loosened restrictions today on corporate- and union-funded television ads that air close to elections, weakening a key provision of a landmark campaign finance law.”

[Austin Willard Wright]

Will the SCOTUS uphold the First Amendment ???

Yes, let's hope it strikes down McCain-Feingold-Thompson.

[elizabetty]

Justice Souter is reading his DISSENT from the bench right now. That is good for opponents of McCain et all

[Red Badger]

Souter?.........Whatis he dissenting now?....

[Huck]

where you hearing it?

[elizabetty]

Souter?.........Whatis he dissenting now?....

DH SOUter upset McCain Feingold taking a hit!

[NeoCaveman]

From Scotusblog

“10:35: Justice Souter is reading his dissent from the bench in the election case.”

Roberts wrote the opinion. Souter dissents. I think this means large parts of McCain-Feingold were just overturned.

[spacejunkie]

siren on drudge about it.

[EagleUSA]

I think this means large parts of McCain-Feingold were just overturned.
::::
Wow, I hope you are right. Now we need details.

[Red Badger]

What’s the score? 5-4, 6-3, 7-2, 8-1?......

[NeoCaveman]

I’m betting 5-4

With Souter, Breyer, Stevens, and Ginsberg in the loser column.

[NeoCaveman]

Wow, I hope you are right. Now we need details.

The most egregious part, to me at least, is what was being litigated. The restriction of groups from running ads critical of candidates within 60 days of an election. So that's the part they struck down. It would be unlike Roberts to go farther than what was litigated so other parts would remain for now.

[EagleUSA]

The vote on THIS issue was 5-4. American Patriots versus the anti-Constitutional Socialists. But the vote did not can the law, in general. But it was a step in the right direction. At least that is the way I read it on Drudge...

[tioga]

Good news.

[VeniVidiVici]

Souter - Liberals arguing against free speech. They never, ever realize their own hypocrisy.

[EagleUSA]

It would be unlike Roberts to go farther than what was litigated so other parts would remain for now.
::::
Agreed and I think that is exactly what happened. Good news regardless — that makes my day :-)

[Political Junkie Too]

Do you want real campaign finance reform? Get rid of Senate elections, and you get rid of Senate campaigns, the need for campaign financing, and ultimately the money in Washington.

Repeal the 17th amendment. It's the "Fairness Doctrine" for Congress.

-PJ

[elizabetty]

From the Chief in this decision:

"In drawing that line, the First Amendment requires us to err on the side of protecting political speech rather than suppressing it. We conclude that the speech at issue in this as-applied challenge is not the “functional equivalent” of express campaign speech. We further conclude that the interests held to justify restricting corporate campaign speech or its functional equivalent do not justify restricting issue advocacy, and accordingly we hold that BCRA §203 is unconstitutional as applied to the advertisements at issue in these cases. "

[elizabetty]

Also from Chief Justice Roberts decision:

"Discussion of issues cannot be suppressed simply because the issues may also be pertinent in an election. Where the First Amendment is implicated, the tie goes to the speaker, not the censor."

INDEED!!