Posted on 06/16/2003 8:29:54 AM PDT by AntiGuv
The Supreme Court ruled Monday that the government can ban campaign contributions from advocacy groups, a warm-up decision to the showdown over the broader new campaign finance law.
Justices rejected a constitutional challenge to the 32-year-old federal donation ban, which applies to groups with a point of view on issues such as gun rights and abortion.
The case, involving a North Carolina anti-abortion organization, was a prelude to the court's handling of the 2002 campaign finance law.
By a vote of 7-2, the court said the right to free speech does not trump Congress' goal of limiting the corrosive effects of corporate money in politics.
Advocacy organizations maintain that their members should be allowed to pool their money and use it to elect candidates who support their issues.
The government maintained that the groups could be used to circumvent individual campaign donation limits, with little public disclosure about the source of the money.
"Any attack on the federal prohibition of direct corporate political contributions goes against the current of a century of congressional efforts," Justice David Souter wrote for the majority.
Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist and Justices John Paul Stevens, Sandra Day O'Connor, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer agreed with Souter. Justice Anthony M. Kennedy agreed with the outcome.
Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas dissented.
The donation ban is not directly related to the court's review of the new campaign finance law, commonly known as McCain-Feingold for its congressional sponsors - Sens. John McCain, R-Ariz., and Russell Feingold, D-Wis., but the ruling will be closely watched for clues to what the justices might do.
The court has scheduled a special session in September, a month ahead of the start of its regular term, to consider the law that bans corporate, union and unlimited contributions - known as soft money - to national party committees.
The new law also bars a range of interest groups, including those financed with corporate or union money and those that do not disclose their donors, from airing ads mentioning federal candidates in their districts the month before a primary and two months before a general election.
When Congress rewrote the campaign finance rules, it did not change the 1971 law that makes it unlawful for any type of corporation to give money to a federal candidate or political party.
Currently only individuals, political parties,political action committees and other campaigns can contribute to federal candidates and national party committees. The court's ruling Monday maintains that status quo and continues a trend in which the high court has been willing to uphold limits on contributions.
In 2001, the court ruled that political parties could not spend unlimited amounts of money if they coordinated their efforts with a candidate. And in 2000, the court voted to back Missouri's contribution limits to state campaigns.
Elizabeth Garrett, a law professor at the University of Southern California, said the case is important because issue-oriented nonprofits have become increasingly important in campaigns.
She said it also means that provisions in the new campaign finance act that require nonprofit corporations, as well as for-profit corporations and labor unions, to use separate funds to pay for political advertisements are more likely to survive the court's review.
"The decision is a green light for other laws regulating these organizations and their involvement in campaigns, such as aggressive disclosure laws," said Garrett.
The case is Federal Election Commission v. Beaumont, 02-403.
This is the biggest understatement since Noah said, “It looks like rain.”
It doesn't?!?
Amendment ICongress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
Looks like we currently have seven idiots on the bench who think the Constitution is "living."
Is it me or do these two seem inseparable on decisions?
JMO, but there are no quotation marks in that quote.
From previous experience of reading the AP, it could be editroializing the news by the reporter.
Wouldn't surprise me one bit.
Of course this ruling holding up a 32 year old law was written by Souter, so anything is possible, but I don't think that even Souter would use such inflammatory language like "corrosive effects of corporate money in politics".
These days I don't give the benefit of the doubt to the liberal media.
I could be wrong, but the lack of quotation marks makes it suspect to me.
By a vote of 7-2, the court said the right to free speech does not trump Congress' goal of limiting the corrosive effects of corporate money in politics.
That is not a powerful statement at all, just a statement of fact. It only affirms that Congress is within it's rights to legally limit free speech under constititional considerations, as always. There are plenty of legal limitations to free speech, such as the "yelling FIRE in a crowded theater" and so on. This statement means nothing, as it only parrots what is already known. The courts are only acknowledging the current law.
In 2001, the court ruled that political parties could not spend unlimited amounts of money if they coordinated their efforts with a candidate. And in 2000, the court voted to back Missouri's contribution limits to state campaigns.
Again, this statement only backs the premise that certain restrictions on campaign contributions are legal. Neither this, or the other statement is relevant with respect to issue-advocacy groups, because it does not address the primary restriction in McCain-Feingold regarding limiting speech within a certain time frame before an election. There is no way to constitutionally defend a suggestion that previously legal speech, can be made illegal by it's proximity to an election. No way can that be defended at all. Legal speech now, is legal speech always. Restricions can only be made on WHAT can be said, not on WHEN you can say it.
I believe that the courts have only made that distinction clear, so that they have an easy explanation, when McCain-Feingold is struck down.
Houston, we've had a problem. We've had a main B bus undervolt.
Huh, here is the original AP quote,
By a vote of 7-2, the court said the right to free speech does not trump Congress' goal of limiting the corrosive effects of corporate money in politics
And here is the quote that you found on FindLaw,
The relevant section of the 1971 Campaign Act - 2 U.S.C. § 441b - "prohibits corporations and labor unions from making direct campaign contributions and independent expenditures in connection with federal elections."
Now there is one word missing from the AP quote but is found within the quote you looked up on FindLaw,
The Supreme Court has essentially ruled that nonprofit, independent political advocacy groups may be regarded in the same manner as corporations and labor unions. The primary restriction - or more accurately, the primary objective - of McCain-Feingold, insofar as issue advocacy is concerned, involves the limitation of their expenditures towards influencing federal elections. The key point of dispute is whether money=speech. The Court has essentially stated that money does not equal free speech within this context.
If the Court is to maintain consistence in its jursiprudence (whatever that's worth) then it would near certainly pass a judgment that limits the expenditures of issue advocacy groups by some manner or another. Whether that's precisely the solution arrived at by McCain-Feingold, or some other solution short of the full breadth of the Campaign Finance Act, remains yet to be seen...
Lenin was brilliant for overthrowing the Tzars.
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.