Justices Reconsider Campaign Finance

Network News

X Profile
View More Activity
By Robert Barnes
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, April 26, 2007

It was clear from the start yesterday just how eager some justices were to revisit the landmark McCain-Feingold campaign finance act that the Supreme Court only four years ago blessed as constitutional.

"Maybe we were wrong last time," Justice Antonin Scalia told Solicitor General Paul D. Clement when Clement advised that the court had already decided the very issue at stake in yesterday's oral arguments.

Scalia was then in the minority of the court. But by the end of yesterday's oral arguments, it seemed that he is part of a majority on the new court headed by Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., which appeared skeptical of the way Congress tried to curb the election-year influence of unions, corporations and special interest groups.

It was a lively session, with prevailing justices in 2003's McConnell v. Federal El ection Commission defending the court's precedent. "It's sort of for me deja vu all over again," Justice Stephen G. Breyer said. "We've heard it." Scalia led the charge on the other side, saying the law is unconstitutionally restrictive. "This is the First Amendment," he thundered.

Roberts and Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr., who were not part of that earlier 5 to 4 decision, may be the keys to how the latest challenge fares. Roberts was an especially tough questioner of Clement, whose duty was to defend the portion of the law under attack, although the chief justice seemed uncomfortable with the idea of blatantly disregarding the court's precedent.

Alito was quieter, but his questions were skeptical of the restrictions in the law. "What do you make of the fact that there are so many advocacy groups that say this is really impractical?" he asked Seth Waxman, representing the congressional sponsors.

A decision to overturn the court's previous endorsement of McCain-Feingold or loosen the restrictions surrounding the use of "issue ads" could have a major impact on the 2008 elections, with rival groups ready to spend millions of dollars.

Yesterday's arguments concerned a portion of the law that says corporate entities cannot use money from their general treasuries to broadcast ads that run 30 days before a primary or 60 days before a general election, are aimed at a relevant electorate and mention a federal candidate by name.

The naming restriction was particularly important, because Congress was trying to do away with "sham" issue ads that purported to be about a controversy but amounted to an attack on a candidate. The groups are free to run such ads if a separate political action committee pays for them.

The court in 2003 said the "vast majority" of such issue ads fell into the category of electioneering, and upheld the restriction as constitutional. But last year, the justices ruled that groups could challenge the law based on specific applications.

A group called Wisconsin Right to Life said its ads fit the bill. They mentioned the state's two senators by name and asked viewers to tell them not to filibuster President Bush's judicial nominations. The ads fell within the blackout period because Sen. Russell Feingold (D) -- coincidentally or not, the namesake of the law -- was running for reelection.

A divided appeals court sided with the group, with two judges saying the ads were genuine issue ads; a third said they were part of the group's stated goal of defeating Feingold.


CONTINUED     1        >

More on the Supreme Court

[The Supreme Court]

The Supreme Court

Full coverage of the U.S. Supreme Court, including key cases and nominations to the nation's highest court.

[Guantanamo Prison]

Guantanamo Prison

Full coverage of the U.S. prison in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, including Supreme Court rulings over its legality.

© 2007 The Washington Post Company

Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity