FEC v. Wisconsin Right to Life, Inc.

Background:

The Supreme Court unveiled a series of 5-4 rulings Monday which included the decision in favor of the Wisconsin Right to Life group. In short, the ruling found that provisions in the 2002 bipartisan campaign finance reform law were unconstitutional. The opinion specifically states that interest groups, unions, and corporations may use issued advocacy advertisements in the final weeks of the campaign (a practice that had been banned under the current law).

A challenge is laid before us:

The intent of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 (BCRA) was to enable free speech by limiting the amount of dilution from excessive campaign advertisements via big business, unions, and advocacy groups. A key argument to the legislation was formed by years of common law practice recognizing the corrupting influence of corporate treasury expenditures on federal elections. This practice goes back to the Tillman Act of 1907 and Federal Corrupt Practices Act of 1925.

However, as Justice Scalia points out in his concurring opinion to Chief Justice Roberts, BCRA makes it a crime to criticize policy if the speaker is acting on behalf of a union or advocacy group during a window prior to an election. How can we criminalize criticism of policy under the constitution and the free speech amendment at any time during the election process?

Therefore, it is up to the supporters of a thoughtful Campaign Finance Reform Law to look at the rulings at face value and go back to the drawing board. We do need to have restrictions on overspending so that it does not dilute free speech from individuals, but at the same time recognize the rights of advocacy groups and unions to participate in the political debate through the entire campaign process. It is a tough issue and one that requires hard debate, but one that needs to be championed and not lost.

Ruling: http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/06pdf/06-969.pdf