Posted on 01/20/2007 3:14:12 AM PST by ovrtaxt
WASHINGTON -- The U.S. Supreme Court agreed on Friday to decide the reach of a federal law that bans certain broadcast advertisements before an election, a case with important implications for the 2008 presidential and congressional campaigns.
The justices said they would decide a case involving an anti-abortion group called Wisconsin Right to Life in its free-speech challenge to a key part of a 2002 federal campaign finance law that seeks to limit the influence of money in politics.
That part of the law bans corporations, unions and special interest groups from using unrestricted money to run television or radio ads that refer to a candidate for federal office two months before a general election or one month before a primary election.
Wisconsin Right to Life argued the ban should not be applied to three ads it wanted to run in 2004 to criticize Sen. Russell Feingold for supporting efforts to block confirmation of several of President George W. Bush's judicial nominees.
Because Feingold, a Wisconsin Democrat, was running for re-election at the time, the ads were prohibited. Feingold had coauthored the landmark campaign finance law with Sen. John McCain, an Arizona Republican.
The ads urged people to call Feingold and the state's other senator, Democrat Herb Kohl, to urge them to oppose filibusters of President George W. Bush's judicial nominees.
INFLUENCE VOTERS
A federal court panel ruled last month that the ads were not election ads covered by the law, but were general issue ads that did not aim to influence voters.
"The language in ... the advertisements does not mention an election, a candidacy or a political party, nor do they comment on a candidate's character, actions or fitness for office," U.S. District Judge Richard Leon wrote in the opinion.
The law's supporters warned the ruling could create a big loophole by allowing thinly disguised issue ads that really are for or against a candidate.
The Bush administration, representing the Federal Election Commission which administers the campaign finance laws, appealed to the Supreme Court.
Four members of Congress -- Sen. McCain and Reps. Tammy Baldwin of Wisconsin and Martin Meehan of Massachusetts, both Democrats, and Connecticut Republican Christopher Shays -- also appealed. They said the ruling threatened to create a large class of ads exempt from the law.
The Supreme Court could set important rules in deciding whether such ads will be allowed and how judges should decide such cases.
Attorneys for Wisconsin Right to Life said the Supreme Court should decide the key factors for determining when ads involve "grass-roots lobbying" and are exempt from the law.
The high court is expected to hear arguments in late April and to decide the case by the end of June, well in advance of the primaries for the 2008 presidential and congressional elections.
In 2003, the Supreme Court by a 5-4 vote upheld key parts of the campaign finance law. But it has allowed challenges on how the law is applied in specific cases, like the one from Wisconsin.
The court's four liberals, along with moderate Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, voted to uphold the law. She has retired and been replaced with Justice Samuel Alito, who could join the court's four other conservatives to limit the law's reach.
Bush and McCain upholding incumbent protection.
Gotta keep those elitist political positions safe now...
Wouldn't this give the CURRENT Supreme Court the chance to limit McCain-Feingold?
That's an excellent question.
Anyone? Anyone?
Bueller?
A bunch of constitutional ignorami arguing about who gets to ignore the simple words of the First Amendment the most.
Well, the control freaks have been arguing that the establishment clause negates the free exercise clause for years now. And the 501c3 classification has been used to shut down political speech by Christians for years.
IMO, the best thing that could happen to free speech is the abolition of the IRS and the passage of the FairTax. This CFR bill is just icing on the control freak's cake.
This part says the ads were ok. Did not violate CFR.
"The language in ... the advertisements does not mention an election, a candidacy or a political party, nor do they comment on a candidate's character, actions or fitness for office," U.S. District Judge Richard Leon wrote in the opinion.
Still ok. The lower court ruled for the ads.
The law's supporters warned the ruling could create a big loophole by allowing thinly disguised issue ads that really are for or against a candidate.
Uh oh! Can't have that. Ads might be used against an incumbent.
The Bush administration, representing the Federal Election Commission which administers the campaign finance laws, appealed to the Supreme Court.
Bush is now forced to support a law he signed. They all like this law. It gives them protection from people like us who wish to shine the light of truth on their avarice.
Bush did sign the law, but supposedly he did not think the Court would uphold it. This could be a chance for this court to knock it down.
Then why did he sign it? I think that's one of the most cowardly things this president has done. He didn't have the guts to veto a law he thought was wrong.
If the SC rules against this it won't kill the law just one aspect of it.
I don't recall the numbers, but was there a possibility, if he vetoed it, of it being passed over a veto?
To me, that's beside the point. If he had any convictions he would have vetoed it and put his objection on record.
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.