« Ind. Law - More on legislators' health care - voting records and questions re state employees' benefits | Main | Ind. Courts - Tippecanoe County expects to add another court »

Monday, January 23, 2006

Law - Supreme Court rules in Wisconsin Right to Life [Updated again]

Wisconsin Right to Life v. Federal Election Commission was argued before the U.S. Supreme Court last Tuesday, Jan. 17th. See this ILB entry from Jan. 18th for background.

Today the Supreme Court issued its decision. Access it here.

For analysis, see this commentary by Lyle Denniston, "Court allows campaign finance challenges," here at SCOTUSblog.

Here is Prof. Rick Hasen's take on the ruling, via Election Law Blog.

And here is Indiana attorney James Bopp's (who argued the case for Right to Life) press release on the decision:

Supreme Court Recognizes As-Applied Challenges In Wisconsin Right to Life's McCain-Feingold Lawsuit

Today Wisconsin Right to Life, Inc. (“WRTL”) won a major part of its challenge to the McCain-Feingold law's prohibiting corporate funding of "electioneering communications" (i.e., targeted broadcast ads referencing a federal candidate within 30 days before a primary election or 60 days before a general election). The United States Supreme Court ruled that such as-applied challenges may be brought against this prohibition.

In 2003, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the “electioneering communication” prohibition on its face in McConnell v. FEC. In 2004, Wisconsin Right to Life wanted to broadcast ads, during the blackout periods, urging their two Senators not to support the filibuster of President Bush’s judicial nominees. The lower court had held, however, that there could be no “as-applied” challenges to the electioneering communication prohibition, so that all broadcast ads, including “genuine issue ads,” were prohibited. The Supreme Court held today (in less than a week after oral argument) that such cases may be brought and directed the district court to determine whether the Constitution requires an exception to the electioneering communication ban for grassroots lobbying ads and whether WRTL’s ads are permissible.

James Bopp, Jr., who argued the case for WRTL on January 17, commented: “The Supreme Court readily saw through the government’s sham argument that McConnell v. FEC precluded all as-applied challenges to the electioneering prohibition. No facial decision upholding a statute on its face ever precludes as-applied challenges to such a law based on the unique situations that arise in the future. The lower court must now confront the real merits of this case, namely, that there is no constitutional justification for prohibiting grassroots lobbying about upcoming votes in Congress, just because we are in an election season. The First Amendment prohibits incumbent politicians from shielding themselves from grassroots lobbying through campaign finance laws.”

[Updated] Gina Holland of the AP writes today, in a story headlined "Supreme Court Sidesteps Campaign Finance":
The Supreme Court said Monday that a lower court should take a new look at a challenge to federal restrictions on political advertisements, delaying a major ruling on the constitutionality of ad limits until after this year's elections.

Justices could have used the case, brought by an anti-abortion group, to spell out when so-called grass-roots ads are allowed at election time.

Without dealing with that issue, the court overturned a decision that barred Wisconsin Right to Life from broadcasting ads that mentioned a senator during his 2004 re-election campaign.

In an unsigned opinion, justices said that the Supreme Court's 2003 ruling upholding a federal campaign finance law left the door open for future challenges that the law, in practice, violated free-speech rights.

[Updated again] See this article by Tony Mauro of Legal Times.

See also this Charles Lane article in the Washington Post.

Posted by Marcia Oddi on January 23, 2006 01:28 PM
Posted to General Law Related