Court Strikes Down Campaign Finance Law

[Attalus]

I always said it was unconstitutional. Here is the link.

[Night Stalker]

Not being a lawyer, or seeing the the actual findings of the court, but on what grounds was this law declared unconstitutional? One could argue that "soft money" also undermines the Constitution.

Perhaps our resident expert could enlighten us .....

[WillowIX]

Yes some enlightenment would be appreciated. [img]smile.gif[/img] Perhaps it is unconstitutional, but does it then have to be a bad thing?

[Rokenn]

Don't court it out till the Supreme court rules on it. They really do need to find a way to keep soft money out of elections.

[Arvon]

Well there was a previous ruling by the Supreme Court stating money was a form of political speech, thus protected under the constitution.

[Attalus]

It placed unconstituional limits on the free speech of potential contributors. I'm sure that Timber will further enlighten us. Here is an interesting column, though.

[Timber Loftis]

The article: By Sharon Theimer Associated Press Writer Friday, May 2, 2003; 4:14 PM A federal court Friday struck down most of a ban on the use of large corporate and union political contributions by political parties, casting into doubt the future of the campaign finance law that was supposed to govern next year’s high-stakes presidential election. The court also ruled unconstitutional new restrictions on election-time political ads by special interest groups and others. It barred the federal government from enforcing them and all other parts of the law it struck down. The ruling clears the way for an immediate appeal by the losing parties to the U.S. Supreme Court. The high court’s decision will lay the ground rules for the 2004 presidential election and beyond. The decision is a victory for the Republican National Committee and dozens of interest groups, who contended that the law would undermine their ability to participate in politics. It is a loss for Republican Sen. John McCain of Arizona and Democratic Sen. Russell Feingold of Wisconsin who fought for years to get a new law enacted. They argued that it was time to end the corrupting influence of big money in politics. The ruling came from a special three-member, fast-track panel of Appeals Court Judge Karen Henderson, District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly and District Judge Richard Leon.

3-judge panel rulings can be appealed to the full court. They are not final

In a 2-1 vote, the court ruled that political parties can raise corporate and union contributions for general party-building activities such as get-out-the-vote drives and voter registration but cannot use it for issue advertising. Also voting 2-1, the court struck down a provision barring a range of interest groups from airing issue ads mentioning federal candidates in those candidates’ districts in the month before a primary election and within two months of a general election.

These are close calls on the rulings. I would appeal it.

The court made its ruling effective immediately, barring the Federal Election Commission from enforcing the restrictions it struck down. The new campaign finance law took effect Nov. 6, forcing an immediate change in party fund raising. It prohibited the national party committees from raising contributions known as “soft money” from corporations, unions and others. The Democratic and Republican parties have collected the unlimited checks in ever-increasing amounts: The fall election saw some contributions of $1 million and more. The parties were allowed to use the money on general party-building activities such as voter registration drives and issue ads. While banning national parties from collecting soft money, the new law allowed state and local parties to continue raising those types of political donations in limited amounts if state law permitted. It barred them from using such money on federal election activity, including general get-out-the-vote drives when federal candidates are on the ballot. The law also imposed new restrictions on political advertising close to elections. It banned a range of interest groups from airing TV and radio ads within a month of a primary and two months before a general election if they named a federal candidate, were funded with unlimited corporate or union contributions and were targeting a candidate’s district. Among other major provisions, the law directed the Federal Election Commission to write tougher rules restricting interest group coordination of election activities with candidates and political parties and political party committees’ coordination with each other. Those opposing the coordination limits, including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, argued that the new rules would chill political speech and that the law was so vague it put interest groups, corporations and unions at risk of investigation simply for talking to lawmakers. While attempting to cut six-figure soft money checks out of politics, the law raised the limits on so-called hard money, limited contributions from individuals and political action committees to candidates and party committees. The individual contribution limit doubled last January, from $1,000 to $2,000 per election. The law banned minors from contributing to national party committees or federal candidates, however. Ruling unanimously, the court struck down that ban as unconstitutional. President Bush signed the law in March 2002 after more than six years of struggle by the law’s lead sponsors, including McCain and Feingold, to get the legislation through Congress. "I believe that this legislation, although far from perfect, will improve the current financing system for federal campaigns," Bush said at the time, adding that parts of the bill including the political ad restrictions presented "serious constitutional concerns." Within hours of the bill's signing, the National Rifle Association and Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) filed lawsuits arguing many of the law’s restrictions violated free-speech and other constitutional rights. Dozens of groups joined their effort to overturn parts of the law, including the Republican National Committee, the Democratic and Republican parties of California, the AFL-CIO, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the AFL-CIO, the American Civil Liberties Union, the Libertarian National Committee, the National Right to Life Committee and the National Association of Broadcasters. While several political party committees and interest groups sued because they felt the law removed too much money from politics, others argued it should be struck down because it put too much in. Several groups, including the National Voting Rights Institute, the U.S. Public Interest Research Group and the Fannie Lou Hamer Project, targeted the law's increase in contribution limits. While others have argued that new political spending restrictions in the law violate free speech, those challenging the higher hard-money limits say it impinges on speech rights by giving wealthy donors too loud a voice in elections. © 2003 The Associated Press

1. Yes, money is speech. However, it is completely true that limits can, and ARE, placed on freedom of speech. There are tests for what limits pass muster. Time, place, and manner limits are common - as any gay parade organizer or any Hari Krishna lamenting the fact they were kicked out of airports will tell you.

2. A political party is not a person, and can have its freedom of speech limited. The party can't vote as a party, doesn't have a driver's license, and has no right to fair employment. These rights, like freedom of speech, belong to members.

The same is true for corporations. Monsanto has no right to freedom of speech. It exists because there are corporation laws providing a limited wall to liability for wrongdoing. It is a "person" only by legal fiction. It does not have fundamental rights. If it has convinced us it does, Kudos to it for being crafty, but let's get real. If Monsanto wants to assert a right, the BigWig there should stand up and do it in his own name. And, if we required him to do so, he'd likely siddown and shaaddup.

3. Money mucks up the system and makes our politicians slaves to big money and oblivious to the needs and wants of the majority of constituents. Something must be done.

4. Vermont passed campaign finance reform. It limited the amount a candidate could collect from each person or spend in advertising.

It also tried to limit PAC monies, and that was struck down. In law school, the head of VT's legislative counsel asked my class to write an amendment excepting PACs from the law without having to strike the whole law. I defined PAC clearly, and did not limit their spending on ISSUES - yet, I prohibited them from spending to advertise in favor of this or that candidate. I got an award for that little project, and it resulted in me interning with the legislative counsel.

Recently, VT's campaign finance limits - really low I must state [img]graemlins/thumbsup.gif[/img] - were upheld again, but a preliminary Westlaw search turned up nothing just now, and at $200/hr I don't want to stay on the site too long.

5. The best thing VT's law did was pass record-keeping and reporting requirements. I think the process would be greatly benefitted by requiring every candidate to accurately record every donation or expenditure of more than $100 from or to any single source. Then publish it online. Let their constituents know who owns them. Also, make "freebies" like $1mil. life insurance policies and $400 dinners and $1200 visits to the D.C. strip clubs and $2000 suits also necessary recordings and publishings. Sure, it's speech, but let us all hear.

I'll look into this case more, and post more later. I think you *could* pass fair campaign finance reform, but the people benefitting from the current status quo have no incentive to do so.

Oh, and let's not forget: many of these truly constitutionally egregious parts of the bill were put there to ensure the statute got shot down on review. Cagey, no? It makes it look like they made the "college try" and puts the courts in the bad guy seat. As Mel Brooks would say, "Politics, politics, politics."

And, while I may be the "resident expert," this is an area where all opinions are needed because we are all voters looking for a fair system.

[Attalus]

We were just waitin' around for it to happen, Timber. I told Galadria that I couldn't believe I heard it before you did. Matt Drudge strikes again.

[Timber Loftis]

Here's what NYTimes had to say:
__________________________________________________
May 2, 2003
Most of Soft Money Ban Is Ruled Unconstitutional
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

Filed at 5:36 p.m. ET

WASHINGTON (AP) -- A federal court Friday struck down most of a ban on the use of large corporate and union contributions by political parties, casting doubt on the future of the new campaign finance law that was supposed to govern next year's elections.

The court, which made its ruling effective immediately, also ruled unconstitutional sweeping new restrictions on election-time political ads by special-interest groups and others. However, it said more narrow limits the law's sponsors included in the legislation as a backup were constitutional.

The roughly 1,700-page ruling -- believed the longest ever produced by a federal district court -- clears the way for an immediate appeal by the losing parties to the U.S. Supreme Court. The high court's decision will establish the ground rules for the 2004 elections and beyond.

Appeals Court Judge Karen LeCraft Henderson, part of a special three-judge panel that issued the ruling, called the law ``unconstitutional in virtually all of its particulars.''

``It breaks faith with the fundamental principle -- understood by our nation's Founding Generation, inscribed in the First Amendment and repeatedly reaffirmed by the United States Supreme Court -- that `debate on public issues should be uninhibited, robust and wide-open,''' the Republican-appointed Henderson, who found virtually all major aspects of the law unconstitutional, wrote in a separate document explaining her approach to the ruling.

The Justice Department, which joined the bill's sponsors and the Federal Election Commission in defending the law, said the department was reviewing the ruling and would decide in the near future what its next steps will be, spokesman Charles Miller said.

``It's a huge victory for free speech,'' said Rep. Bob Ney, R-Ohio, who supported less-restrictive legislation that would have limited soft money but not banned it. ``We knew these parts just wouldn't be constitutional, no matter how you looked at it. The bans they put in there were nothing but incumbent-protection tools.''

Sen. Russell Feingold, D-Wis., one of the law's lead sponsors, expressed relief that the court didn't strike the entire law down.

``This is better than I expected, but it needs to get better,'' Feingold said. ``We need the U.S. Supreme Court to do more.''

The decision is at least a partial victory for the Republican National Committee and dozens of interest groups, who argued that the law would undermine their ability to participate in politics. It is at least a partial loss for the chief congressional sponsors of the campaign finance bill -- Republican Sen. John McCain of Arizona and Feingold -- who fought for years to get new restrictions enacted. The two argued that it was time to end the corrupting influence of big money in politics.

The ruling came from a special fast-track panel of Henderson, District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly and District Judge Richard Leon, the other Republican appointee.

In a 2-1 vote, the court ruled that political parties can raise corporate and union contributions for general party-building activities such as get-out-the-vote drives and voter registration but cannot use them for issue advertising.

Also voting 2-1, the court struck down a provision barring a range of interest groups from airing issue ads mentioning federal candidates in those candidates' districts in the month before a primary election and within two months of a general election. It upheld a backup provision in the law that barred a range of groups from airing ads that promote, support, attack or oppose a candidate close to an election.

In making its ruling effective immediately, the court's action bars the Federal Election Commission from enforcing the restrictions it struck down.

The court also said it would release the fund-raising documents and other records it relied upon to make its ruling, but it will keep under seal those parts of the documents that it didn't use in its rulings.

The new campaign finance law took effect Nov. 6, forcing an immediate change in party fund raising.

It prohibited the national party committees from raising contributions known as ``soft money'' from corporations, unions and others. The Democratic and Republican parties have collected the unlimited checks in ever-increasing amounts: The fall election saw some contributions of $1 million and more. The parties were allowed to use the money on general party-building activities such as voter registration drives and issue ads.

While banning national parties from collecting it, the new law let state and local parties continue raising soft money in limited amounts if state law permitted. It barred them from using such money on federal election activity, including general get-out-the-vote drives when federal candidates are on the ballot.

The law also imposed new restrictions on political advertising close to elections. It banned a range of interest groups from airing TV and radio ads within a month of a primary and two months before a general election if they named a federal candidate, were funded with unlimited corporate or union contributions and targeted the candidate's district.

Among other major provisions, the law directed the Federal Election Commission to write tougher rules restricting interest group coordination of election activities with candidates and political parties and political party committees' coordination with each other. Those opposing the coordination limits, including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, argued that the new rules would chill political speech and that the law was so vague it put interest groups, corporations and unions at risk of investigation simply for talking to lawmakers.

While attempting to cut six-figure soft money checks out of politics, the law raised the limits on so-called hard money, limited contributions from individuals and political action committees to candidates and party committees. The individual contribution limit doubled in January, from $1,000 to $2,000 per election.

The law banned minors from contributing to national party committees or federal candidates, however. Ruling unanimously, the court struck down that ban as unconstitutional.

President Bush signed the law in March 2002, saying, ``I believe that this legislation, although far from perfect, will improve the current financing system for federal campaigns,'' Bush also said at the time that parts of the bill, including the political ad restrictions, presented ``serious constitutional concerns.''

Within hours of the bill's signing, the National Rifle Association and Sen. Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., filed lawsuits arguing many of the law's restrictions violated free-speech and other constitutional rights.

Dozens of groups joined their effort to overturn parts of the law, including the Republican National Committee, the Democratic and Republican parties of California, the AFL-CIO, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the AFL-CIO, the American Civil Liberties Union, the Libertarian National Committee, the National Right to Life Committee and the National Association of Broadcasters.

While several political party committees and interest groups sued because they felt the law removed too much money from politics, others argued it should be struck down because it put too much in.

Several groups -- including the National Voting Rights Institute, the U.S. Public Interest Research Group and the Fannie Lou Hamer Project -- targeted the law's increase in contribution limits.

While others have argued that new political spending restrictions in the law violate free speech, those challenging the higher hard money limits say it impinges on speech rights by giving wealthy donors too loud a voice in elections.

One thing about campaign finance reform that worries me is that it appears to tip the scales heavily into the corner of the incumbants...who by already being in office are able to access the media and get their message out farmore easily and cheaply than do reletively unknown candidates. All the proposals I have heard about have this as a flaw.