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.
I hope you are right.
Also I was just pointing out the bias of the reporter with her leaving out the word "union" in regards to the original law.
Good catch.
You are much nicer away from the drug threads. Therefore: Drugs are bad for you, Dane. Just say no.
That really is the the nasty little secret few seem willing to acknowledge. At least you're honest about it.
Coin-A-Term: Bushistas? Bushidos? Bushmen?
Yes, and I dont know why, either. I know that we like to believe that we are more moral and decent then the other side, just like the other side believes it of us. I may upset a lot of Conservatives, but the Left thinks that they are the MORAL ones.
The truth is that we are all universally more interested in our own ideas than the other guy's. It is literally a war of ideas. Playing fair in war, can lead to long periods of LOSING. Just like the Republicans in Congress through the 60's and 70's.
Republicans have only recently woken up and discovered that if you want to win, you have to get down in the mud and wrestle that pig.
Winning clean is not as important as WINNING period. Losers accomplish nothing.
Basically what I get from reading the case quickly is that the SC's logic is that if we allowed this nonprofit to duck the laws that apply to the big bad corporations and unions then we would be inconsistant and we would have to allow these big bad corporations and unions to do whatever they wanted. We can't do both, therefore we must use a lesser excuse than strict scrutiny (which wouldn't work) and apply it to the poor nonprofit.
Actually some of the logic holds for me because it is conceivable that if I donate to a corporate group that says they will support anti-abortion issues I have no way of actually controlling what they say and do.
I would be interested to see what they would to do, say a group of us FR folks, who pass the hat on running an advertisement. Something tells me that that would be protected because we are not acting within an entity that enjoys special privelidges created by the state.
I disagree. Well stated and thought out arguments can carry the day regardless of the media's attitude. I present the Contract with America that was relatively successful despite massive media attacks.
As far as GW's job it is absolutely NOT to get elected. His job is to preserve and protect the constitution. Unfortunately this is a job that he deserted in favor of a quest for media love.
Here is my problem with this statement. If it turns out that the SC agreed with the bill as signed, then its constitutional. How do we trash the man for signing an unconstitutional bill that gets upheld as constutitional ?
We may disagree with it but we certainly lose credibility by claiming he breached a duty by signing something that later proved to be upheld. I think the case against him only works if the SC rules against him.
So much for the Constitution being the law of the land.
It's just a goal that is overpowering an amendment.
Forget about being a Constitutional Republic.
That being said I will go with the plain language that is crystal clear that this is unconstitutional. GW basically admitted as much when he signed it.
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.