From Fox News Website, 18 November 2002
Supreme Court to Hear Campaign Finance Case
Monday, November 18, 2002
WASHINGTON (AP and FOX) — The Supreme Court will take a new look at whether certain advocacy groups can contribute directly to candidates, the justices agreed Monday.
Currently, only individuals, political parties, political action committees (PACs) and formal campaign committees can give directly to candidates.
But North Carolina Right to Life and other non-profit advocacy organization argued that they raise contributions through donations and not business ventures or union dues and should be allowed to give to candidates. The 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals agreed with their assessment, and now the Supreme Court has agreed to hear an appeal of that decision launched by the Justice Department.
Up until now, such advocacy groups have been able to contribute indirectly to PACs or parties, fund so-called "issue ads" -- as long as they don't endorse a particular candidacy -- and give through unregulated soft money. But the recently passed McCain-Feingold campaign finance law, which went into effect Nov.6, banned both soft money and issue ads 60 days before an election and 30 days before a primary.
A separate lawsuit is challenging McCain-Feingold, and is expected to go before a panel of federal judges for arguments in early December.
Meanwhile, advocacy groups hope to gain traction where they might have lost some under McCain-Feingold by being able to contribute money to candidates for the first time.
The Supreme Court has been more willing to uphold limits on contributions, which justices have said could give the appearance of corruption. In June 2001, a very divided court ruled 5-4 that political parties could not spend unlimited amounts of money if they coordinated their efforts with a candidate. And in January 2000, the court voted 6-3 to back Missouri's contribution limits to state campaigns.
On the other hand, the court has struck down spending restrictions on First Amendment grounds, likening money to free speech. Such reasoning led the court in 1976 to uphold post-Watergate limits on campaign contributions but throw out restrictions on how much candidates could spend on their campaigns.
The Supreme Court in 1986 overturned Federal Election Commission regulations and allowed these nonprofit advocacy corporations to pay for independent advertisements that specifically urge voters to support or oppose particular candidates. Such ads cannot be coordinated with the candidates they have endorsed, however.
Other corporations and labor unions are prohibited under federal law from using their treasuries to directly support candidates.
North Carolina Right to Life suit argues that since their money comes from donations, they are not at risk of corruption, which has been the primary reason behind restricting direct contributions from corporations, unions and non-profits. Lawyers for the non-profits say that unlike unions and corporations, advocacy groups could not directly benefit from government actions.
The nonprofits offer "none of 'danger of corruption' to the political system that business corporations pose," argued the group's lawyer, James Bopp, who has represented several other organizations that have challenged campaign spending limits as a violation of the First Amendment.
In its earlier ruling, the 4th Circuit said, "it would be foolhardy to pretend that a ban on the ability of advocacy groups to make contributions and expenditures does not impair their capacity to participate in the political process," the court said.
"Making expenditures and funding campaigns are essential means by which citizens in a democracy can make themselves heard."