A federal appeals court overturned hard-fought campaign finance reform regulations in a ruling on Friday that will make it easier for independent political groups to raise and spend money to influence elections.
The three-judge panel struck down regulations intended to blunt the power of such organizations, including the controversial Swift Boat Veterans for Truth and MoveOn.org, which drew heavy criticism for spending tens of millions of dollars on aggressive advertisements during the 2004 presidential campaign.
The ruling, if it stands, could provide a boost to Republicans and their allies as they try to win back Congress in 2010 and the White House in 2012. Outside conservative groups could become particularly important in countering the fundraising juggernaut of President Obama, who shattered past records by raising more than $750 million during his 2008 campaign.
Well, it's nice to know that the appeals court is working to free conservatives to bag more scalps. But of course the party bringing the suit was brought by an organization that isn't exactly conservative, as we learn several paragraphs down the page.
The decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit came in a lawsuit brought by Emily's List, a nonprofit political organization that backs female Democratic candidates who support abortion rights.
There's a little goose and gander for you in this story. I gather that two of the judges rested their decision both on the federal law that the FEC (Federal Election Commission) was interpreting, and on the Constitution. One of the judges would have restricted the decision to an interpretation of the statutes. That is a big difference for the obvious reason that the Constitution trumps all other regulation.
We have a statutory regime that heavily regulates the raising and spending of hard money (by campaign organizations) and soft money (by parties and independent political organizations). The purpose of such regulations is to limit the influence of money (unions, corporations, etc.) in American elections. But such regulation clearly works by limiting political speech.
If someone says "Obama is a Nazi" in a public forum, that is protected speech under the First Amendment. If he buys a can of paint, a brush, and a poster board and writes the same slogan, both the purchases and the calligraphy are protected speech. But what if a bunch of his buddies get together, pool their cash, and buy airtime on the local radio station to advertise the same message? Now they are potentially subject to FEC regulation. The FEC can limit their ability to raise money and run ads in order to influence an election.
Here is what United States District Court for the District of Columbia said:
The First Amendment, as interpreted by the Supreme Court, protects the right of individual citizens to spend unlimited amounts to express their views about policy issues and candidates for public office. Similarly, the First Amendment, as the Court has construed it, safeguards the right of citizens to band together and pool their resources as an unincorporated group or non-profit organization in order to express their views about policy issues and candidates for public office. We agree with EMILY's List that the new FEC regulations contravene those principles and violate the First Amendment.
Well…yes. All incorporated or unincorporated groups are groups: individuals who poll their resources but retain their rights under the Constitution. If the First Amendment means anything, it means that they are free to express their views in any public forum.
The USDCDC got it right. I just hope the Supreme Court confirms it.
Comments