High Court Eases Limits On Political Ads

In Setback For Campaign Finance Law, Court Allows Airing Of "Issue" Ads Close To Elections

(CBS/AP)  The Supreme Court loosened restrictions Monday on corporate- and union-funded television ads that air close to elections, weakening a key provision of a landmark campaign finance law.

The court, split 5-4, upheld an appeals court ruling that an anti-abortion group should have been allowed to air ads during the final two months before the 2004 elections. The law unreasonably limits speech and violates the group's First Amendment rights, the court said.

The decision could lead to a bigger role for corporations, unions and other interest groups in the 2008 presidential and congressional elections.

"This is a defeat for the McCain-Feingold legislation that was the subject of so much political and legal discussion a few years ago," said CBS News legal analyst Andrew Cohen.

"And it is in many ways part of a return to the old ways, when there were fewer restrictions on the way people spend money when it comes to campaigns."

The case involved advertisements that Wisconsin Right to Life was prevented from broadcasting. The ads asked voters to contact the state's two senators, Democrats Russ Feingold and Herb Kohl, and urge them not to filibuster President Bush's judicial nominees.

Feingold, a co-author of the campaign finance law, was up for re-election in 2004.

The provision in question was aimed at preventing the airing of issue ads that cast candidates in positive or negative lights while stopping short of explicitly calling for their election or defeat. Sponsors of such ads have contended they are exempt from certain limits on contributions in federal elections.

Chief Justice John Roberts, joined by his conservative allies, wrote a majority opinion upholding the appeals court ruling.

The majority itself was divided in how far justices were willing to go in allowing issue ads.

Three justices, Anthony Kennedy, Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas, would have overruled the court's 2003 decision upholding the constitutionality of the provision.

Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito said only that the Wisconsin group's ads are not the equivalent of explicit campaign ads and are not covered by the court's 2003 decision.

That court, differently composed, upheld large portions of the law in its 2003 decision, including the provision in question in the current case.

On Monday, Justice David Souter, joined by his three liberal colleagues, said in his dissent that the court "effectively and, unjustifiably, overruled" the earlier decision.

The ads could have been run, Souter pointed out, had they been paid for out of the group's political action committee, which is subject to federal campaign finance limits. Or Feingold's name could have been omitted, he said.

"Thus, what is called a 'ban' on speech is a limit on the financing of electioneering broadcasts by entities...that insist on acting as conduits from the campaign war chests of business corporations," Souter said.

Justices Stephen Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and John Paul Stevens joined Souter's dissent.

The Bush administration urged the court to ban the ads, arguing that they were meant to influence the elections, not lobby the senators.

But Roberts said, "Discussion of issues cannot be suppressed simply because the issues also may be pertinent in an election. Where the First Amendment is implicated, the tie goes to the speaker, not the censor."

An array of interest groups across the political spectrum sought the outcome the court reached Monday. They include: the American Civil Liberties Union, the National Rifle Association, labor unions and business groups.

The consolidated case is Federal Election Commission v. Wisconsin Right to Life, 06-969, and McCain v. Wisconsin Right to Life, 06-970.

[gunownerdan]

Big Government + Big Corporations = Fascism

[hungry1968]

hungry1968,
I'm sorry to disappoint you, but this decision only means that you'll see more ads like 'Please urge Congressman Jones to vote for National Public Radio'
If you want more slam ads, you'll have to donate money directly to the candidate of your choice.
Posted by opfor311 at 12:10 AM : Jun 26, 2007

Uh huh. And how long do you think it will be before someone notices a loop hole that they're going to drive a mack truck through? Or do you think our politicians are too honest and / or have too much integrity.

[honest_news]

Hmmm, let's see now -- which party is it that has for the past thirty years perfected the art of dirty tricks, character assassination and personal attack ads against candidates that air immediately before an election?

And which party has for the past two decades amassed the resources within large corporations and special interest groups to launch these fear-based negative campaigns?

So, which party stood to lose the most if the Court had decided to enforce these restrictions?

Duh.

Welcome to Bush's Legacy -- The Scalia-Roberts-Alito GOP Triumvirate and their two cronies, Thomas and Kennedy.

[briannorwood]

Let me get this straight. Congress passes a law setting reasonable restrictions on campaign contributions.

Right-leaning Supreme Court overrules Congress.

Is this what they mean when they say "Legislating from the bench?"

[drummer94]

Time to get out my rubber brick. The more "ads" I have to suffer through doesn't bring me any closer to being convinced for one candidate over another. I want substance, not style.

[afmca]

Until some of these neo-con justices die America is stuck with the most politicized, right-wing Christian court in history. This court will just add to the negative perception of America throughout the world as the Catholic clan erase personal rights and liberties. The two most important "rights" this court has in for Corporate profits and church supported doctrine. It is a court Americans should hold in contempt.

[r9119111]

Oh good! I was thinking to myself last October and November - we need more paid political ads on television. Especially the ones that slam their opponent instead of highlighting their own accomplishments.
Posted by hungry1968

Right on! Time to turn off the TV completely.

TV is such a great educational tool and much of it is going to waste on political B.S.. God forbid, if public television is forced off the air, _____________________. The End!

[opfor311]

hungry1968,

I'm sorry to disappoint you, but this decision only means that you'll see more ads like 'Please urge Congressman Jones to vote for National Public Radio'

If you want more slam ads, you'll have to donate money directly to the candidate of your choice.

[hungry1968]

Oh good! I was thinking to myself last October and November - we need more paid political ads on television. Especially the ones that slam their opponent instead of highlighting their own accomplishments.

[likeitis5050]

Watch for all kinds of c..r..a..p to hit the Senate and House floor in these last months before election. They know they have a limited amount of time but they are going after things that will take years to reverse. These s..k..anks are ruthless. I would LOVE to see the voters get rid of every single one currently in office just to show politicians the ride can be bumpy but voters still know how to hit the brakes.

[opfor311]

veteran71,

Let's see, the decision that exempted juvenile executions was 5 to 4, Stenberg vs Carhart was 5 to 4, Massachusetts v. EPA was 5 to 4, and McConnell v. Federal Election Commission (which upheld McCain-Feingold) was also 5 to 4.

I would go on, but I hope you get my point. How one views a 5 to 4 decision depends on how one wanted it to turn out.

Right now, Kennedy is the swing vote, and he was never really a secure vote for either progressives or conservatives.

[opfor311]

Puleeese.....

All this ruling does is clairfy what kinds of issue ads can be run. This allows any group to run an issue-oriented ad that does not call for a vote for or against a candidate to run in the 30 or 90 day period before an election. If MoveOn.org wants to run an ad of this type, they can. If the NRA wants to run an ad of this type they can. If Americans for the Seperation of Church and State wants to run an ad of this type, they can.

Folks, ads of this kind don't get anyone elected. They just portray a point of view. And since any point of view can be shown, it is even handed. That's why the ACLU supported this position.

The problem is not the money in politics, it is the lack of accountablity. Scrap McCain-Fingold and replace it with extermely stringent reporting of every dime.

[jjreding-2009]

Funny how more power and 'freedom of speech' is given to corporations and taken away from the PEOPLE who those freedoms were granted to by the Bill of Rights.

[homespunlady]

PLEASE insure those crooked unverifiable voting machines are banned. This nation NEEDS POLL-WATCHERS just to insure some of the shenanigans don't take place.
Let the people vote, encourage them.
If all else fails I guess I'll TRY to follow in our leader's footsteps - buy a "vacation home" outside this country and find a way to get there.

I mourn the loss of our Constitution and all it once stood for.

[jsilver2th]

Who has free speech: the American Civil Liberties Union, the National Rifle Association, labor unions and business groups.

Who does not: High School Students.

Too bad that kid didn't have a million for TV ads- he might be protected too... And why won't they let Jesus get a bong hit anyway? Does he have a green card?

[bareemperor]

****Money Talks****

[jjreding-2009]

Given how corporations (especially the oil and gas industry) and investors have reaped HUGE profits from the Bush administration and their tax cuts (leading to the insane growth of the stock market), this decision is going to open the floodgates of Republican-slanted corporate donors for the next presidential election. This worries greatly because this takes on the look of bias of epic proportions. Removing the limits that have been so difficult to get into law in the first place is a huge step in the wrong direction for fairness and equity in political power grabs and opens the door to Republicans being beholden to the special interests. There's no doubt about it, this decision by the Court strongly favours Republicans and is one more step in the dismantling of fairness and equity in this country. Partisans on the Bench should be outlawed by Congress - on BOTH sides of the political divide. One of the strongest qualifications of any prospective Justice should be fairness and moderation, not leaning to either right or left, liberal or conservative. The only way to get true equity in this country from the Supreme Court is to have all Justices fall within the moderate category who can legislate from the middle, not either end of the political spectrum.

[gunownerdan]

Bush has given himself and future presidents enough power to make any megalomaniac drool and the American sheeple couldn't care less.

[muzzlebush]

This is the Bush legacy:

The circumvention of the Constitution
The elimination of the middle class
The outright purchase of the Supreme Court
The reduction of the United States' standing in the eyes of the rest of the world
The reduction of the Office of The Presidency to that of a position that can be bought and sold to the highest bidder

[gunownerdan]

"why is the ACLU siding with the conservative judges and why is the Bush administration siding with the liberals??"

Liberals, conservatives, what's the difference? The 2 major parties have already been hijacked by big money.