| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front |
| Parts of Campaign Finance Law Struck Down |
| 2003-05-02 |
| A three-judge panel in Washington struck down major provisions of the new campaign finance law this afternoon in a much-awaited ruling, setting the stage for a final showdown at the U.S. Supreme Court later this year that will determine the shape, style and bank accounts of the nation's major political campaigns. Nearly five months after the McCain-Feingold law was argued before the panel, most of the soft money prohibitions were declared to be unconstitutional by a 2-1 majority, possibly clearing the way for major political parties to begin raising the large, unregulated sums of money from corporations, trade unions and wealthy individuals that critics said had plagued major election campaigns during the past two decades. That decision, like the other parts of the new law declared to be unconstitutional, is effective immediately, the panel ruled. Barring a stay from the Supreme Court, that means campaign fundraising will enter a confusing standard of regulations, as political parties and interest groups raise funds regulated by a set of laws that may change again when the Supreme Court rules, lawyers in the case said today. The panel also voted 2-1 to strike down the ban on most "issue ads," or thinly veiled political ads, that corporations, unions, interest groups and individuals can run on radio or television in the run-up to elections. But the court allowed the ban on a secondary definition of the ads to be enforced in more limited situations. The 1,600-page ruling, the longest in the history of the U.S. District Court in Washington, is largely seen as at least a temporary victory for free speech advocates, major interest groups such as the National Rifle Association, and the Republican National Committee, who were some of major plaintiffs among the more than 80 groups that challenged more than 20 different provisions of the law. "The ruling restores the ability of political parties to be major unifying players in the political process, and it will stop special interest groups [who would not have faced the ban on accepting unregulated sums] from taking over," said Benjamin Ginsburg, one of the lawyers representing the RNC. Ginsburg said late today it wasn't clear if the national political committees would start raising soft money again, or wait on a Supreme Court ruling. The Justice Department, the Federal Election Commission, 19 states, two U.S. territories, several members of Congress and a handful of self-styled good government groups filed briefs supporting the new law. Soft money contributions started out as $18 million in the 1980 cycle of elections, according to the Federal Election Commission, but ballooned to $458 million by 2000, a system growing out of control, they said. In arguments made before the judicial panel on Dec. 4, former solicitor generals Seth P. Waxman and Kenneth W. Starr squared off, with Waxman defending the law as a necessary antidote to a system overrun with big money, while Starr attacked it as a violation of the First Amendment, riddled with other problems. Opposition to the law was immediate, swift and broad. Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) became the lead plaintiff in the case by filing suit minutes after President Bush signed the bill into law last year. The National Rifle Association, the Republican National Committee, the California Democratic Party, the American Civil Liberties Union and dozens of others followed. The ACLU and others said the prohibition on issue ads was a clear violation of constitutional protections of free speech, a core constitutional challenge that went back to the founding of the republic. The RNC said the law divorced national parties from their state affiliates, thereby weakening the national political structure. And when attorneys representing the plaintiffs noted during oral arguments that no one had alleged a single actual case of a donation buying a vote in Congress, Judge Leon seemed to agree, noting that appearance did not inherently equal corruption. When oral arguments were concluded, the three judges had to work through more than 50,000 pages of evidence and 1,600 pages of briefs. |
| Posted by:John Phares |
| #2 The 1,600-page ruling, the longest in the history of the U.S. District Court in Washington... If you can't dazzle 'em with brilliance, baffle 'em with bullshit. |
| Posted by: mojo 2003-05-02 22:28:46 |
| #1 No surprise - the free speech restrictions always were constitutionally invalid |
| Posted by: Frank G 2003-05-02 17:50:58 |