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.
And if any of the folks in the group hire each other as contractors but they haven't arranged themselves as an NPC, the IRS swoops in (Indiana Baptist Temple?)
The "fire" notion is cute, but given that Congress shouldn't have anything to do with theaters and any vocalizations therein, I'd like to see some other evidence that the First Amendment was not intended as an absolute bar against *CONGRESS*. States, of course, were free until the 1860's to pass whatever restrictions on speech, press, religion, etc. their own constitutions allowed.
As for the specific issues, I'm burned out right now. Just hours ago I finished the main work on my amicus brief to the SC and sent it out for review. Forgive me for taking a brief break.
Congressman Billybob
Latest column, now up FR,"The Perfect Country and Western Song."
As for the specific issues, I'm burned out right now. Just hours ago I finished the main work on my amicus brief to the SC and sent it out for review. Forgive me for taking a brief break.
Congressman Billybob
Latest column, now up FR,"The Perfect Country and Western Song."
As for the specific issues, I'm burned out right now. Just hours ago I finished the main work on my amicus brief to the SC and sent it out for review. Forgive me for taking a brief break.
Congressman Billybob
Latest column, now up FR,"The Perfect Country and Western Song."
As for the specific issues, I'm burned out right now. Just hours ago I finished the main work on my amicus brief to the SC and sent it out for review. Forgive me for taking a brief break.
Congressman Billybob
Latest column, now up FR,"The Perfect Country and Western Song."
A link to the webpage for that show appears on the front page of my website. Click link, below. Alas, because of copyright concerns, that Show is not available on the Internet.
This case involves a conflict between two Circuit Courts of Appeal, which necessitates the Supreme Court reaching a final judgment. It also involves a conflict between two Supreme Court cases, National Right to Work and Massachusetts Citizens for Life. This case also concerns Buckley v. Valeo, the current granddaddy of campaign finance cases.
The important point to note is that this decision concerns "fund-raising" not "expenditures." Right-to-Life organizations remain free to raise money through their affiliated Political Action Committees, and free to publish their voters' guides, in which they can state, flatly, the positions of politicians for or against abortion.
Also, this case does NOT in any way predict how the Supreme Court will rule in McConnell v. FEC, the campaign case now before the Supreme Court. (I have just finished the next-to-last draft of my brief in that case, and will be there for the argument, specially set for 8 September.)
Reading the three opinions in this case butress my conclusion that we will get the Supreme Court to strike down large portions of McCain-Feingold -- if not the entire law. And I stand by my statement that I will resign from the Bar of the Supreme Court if we are unable to achieve that result.
Congressman Billybob
Latest column, now up FR, "The Perfect Country and Western Song."
*IF* I can get away from work before 6:00 I will listen in.
I can't pick up 680 AM inside my office building and it's spotty at times even in my car.
Reading the three opinions in this case butress my conclusion that we will get the Supreme Court to strike down large portions of McCain-Feingold -- if not the entire law. And I stand by my statement that I will resign from the Bar of the Supreme Court if we are unable to achieve that result.
I'm glad to hear you say that.
There's been a lot of handwringing on this thread because of this ruling and I have taken a wait-and-see approach.
I admire your statement and your convictions. Let's hope it doesn't come to that, though.
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.