Panel Says Issue Ads OK During Elections

AP via SFGate ^ | 12/21/6 | MATT APUZZO

[SmithL]

WASHINGTON -- The federal government cannot prohibit advocacy groups from running issue advertisements during peak election season, a panel of federal judges ruled Thursday.

The 2-1 ruling was issued in a case involving a Wisconsin anti-abortion group that challenged congressional restrictions on ads by corporations, labor unions and other special interest groups that mention candidates two months before a general election.

Some lawmakers have predicted such a ruling would create a loophole in the 2002 McCain-Feingold campaign law, which attempted to reduce the influence of big-spending special-interest groups in elections.

The case automatically heads to the Supreme Court for review.

The three-judge panel upheld the government's right to prohibit corporate and union-sponsored advertisements that attempt to influence voters but said organizations have a First Amendment right to speak out on genuine political issues.

[Always Right]

The three-judge panel upheld the government's right to prohibit corporate and union-sponsored advertisements that attempt to influence voters but said organizations have a First Amendment right to speak out on genuine political issues.

Half a good ruling. Not sure where the government got the right to prohibit speech that attempts to influence voters though. Oh well, at least I can run around naked during the 60-days prior to an election as long as I don't advocate voting for someone.

[Ancesthntr]

Half a good ruling. Not sure where the government got the right to prohibit speech that attempts to influence voters though.

I fully agree - but it is nice to know that if this ruling stands, the NRA can advertise like crazy just before an election...just what McStain and Swinegold were trying to prevent.

[TomGuy]

organizations have a First Amendment right to speak out on genuine political issues.

Johnny Mc is just gonna hate that. And so is Hillary. And Jon Carry.

McCain-Feingold isn't doing to well when challenged.

[nothingnew]

Here we go.... Mc/Fe should never have been passed in the first place. Thanks for the veto on that one George....oh, he didn't veto?....well, then the USSC will throw it out!....oh....they didn't?....Here we go.

FMCDH(BITS)

[sanchmo]

Some lawmakers have predicted such a ruling would create a loophole in the 2002 McCain-Feingold campaign law, which attempted to reduce the influence of big-spending special-interest groups THE POSSIBILITY OF INCUMBENTS LOSING in elections

There, fixed.

[Robwin]

I am pleased with the ruling, but saddened to see that it wasn't 3-0. The dissenter is a Clinton appointee (surprise!) who has an extensive background in Civil Rights matters with the US Justice Dept.; where, it appears, no one ever brought the First Amendment to his attention.

Freedom of Speech is not out of the woods just yet, as this ruling will be automatically reviewed by the Supremes, and heaven only knows how they may rule.

[sanchmo]

This is the first halfway decent ruling on McCain-Feingold.

According to our elected representatives, the 1st Ammendment:
* Allows people to sell dirty pictures,
* Does NOT allow people to publically debate the merits of candidates for public office during the most important time of a political campaign,
* Prevents the government from recognizing the social importance of any religion.

It's like the Bizzarro Constitution.

[DManA]

The 2-1 ruling - One of these guys needs to take a remedial course on the Constitution.

[longtermmemmory]

Given what Justice Bryer has been saying of late, I don't think he could EVER pass a first year law school class with his "the law is what I need it to be" attitude.