Bradley in DC
06-25-2007, 11:24 AM
http://www.ballot-access.org/2007/06/25/us-supreme-court-says-mccain-feingold-law-is-partly-unconstitutional/
On June 25, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled part of the McCain-Feingold federal campaign law unconstitutional, as applied to broadcast ads paid for by a corporation that mention a candidate for federal office but do not mention the upcoming election. Federal Election Commission v Wisconsin Right to Life, no. 06-969. Chief Justice Roberts wrote the decision, but his opinion was joined only by Justice Alito. Justices Kennedy, Scalia and Thomas would have held that part of the McCain-Feingold law to be unconstitutional on its face, not just as applied to certain types of ads.
This outcome should make it somewhat easier for minor parties to someday challenge another part of the McCain-Feingold law, the part that limits the amount of money that individuals can contribute to new or minor parties. The Supreme Court’s 2003 decision, upholding McCain-Feingold on its face, had said that the act could still be challenged by certain types of plaintiffs, in as-applied challenges. Since one type of as-applied challenge has now succeeded, it is more plausible that other such challenges will succeed. The outcome will probably also help Unity08 to win its pending lawsuit against the FEC. The issue in Unity08’s case is the FEC decision that no one may give or loan Unity08 more than $5,000.
More coverage here
http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/supreme-court-strikes-mccain-feingold-provision-2007-06-25.html
and here
http://thehill.com/campaign-2008/mccain-regrettable-decision-2007-06-25.html
On June 25, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled part of the McCain-Feingold federal campaign law unconstitutional, as applied to broadcast ads paid for by a corporation that mention a candidate for federal office but do not mention the upcoming election. Federal Election Commission v Wisconsin Right to Life, no. 06-969. Chief Justice Roberts wrote the decision, but his opinion was joined only by Justice Alito. Justices Kennedy, Scalia and Thomas would have held that part of the McCain-Feingold law to be unconstitutional on its face, not just as applied to certain types of ads.
This outcome should make it somewhat easier for minor parties to someday challenge another part of the McCain-Feingold law, the part that limits the amount of money that individuals can contribute to new or minor parties. The Supreme Court’s 2003 decision, upholding McCain-Feingold on its face, had said that the act could still be challenged by certain types of plaintiffs, in as-applied challenges. Since one type of as-applied challenge has now succeeded, it is more plausible that other such challenges will succeed. The outcome will probably also help Unity08 to win its pending lawsuit against the FEC. The issue in Unity08’s case is the FEC decision that no one may give or loan Unity08 more than $5,000.
More coverage here
http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/supreme-court-strikes-mccain-feingold-provision-2007-06-25.html
and here
http://thehill.com/campaign-2008/mccain-regrettable-decision-2007-06-25.html