A divided United States Supreme Court has given the green light to some of the key provisions of the 2002 “McCain-Feingold” campaign-finance overhaul intended to weaken the influence of money in politics.
The court ruled 5-4 to uphold the law’s ban on so-called “soft money,” or unlimited donations to political parties. The loophole in the Watergate-era campaign regulations allowed corporations and unions to contribute to campaigns and enabled wealthy individuals to open the floodgates and work around federal caps on donations.
Justices John Paul Stevens, Sandra Day O’Connor, David Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer signed the majority opinion, which prohibits candidates for federal office and national political parties or their state affiliates from raising “soft money.”
Curiously, the court predicted its ruling would not completely close the spigot of big-money politics.
“We are under no illusion that [the law] will be the last congressional statement on the matter. Money, like water, will always find an outlet. What problems will arise, and how Congress will respond, are concerns for another day,” Justices John Paul Stevens and Sandra Day O’Connor wrote for the majority.
The new rules under the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act, passed last year by Congress and signed into law by President George W. Bush, were put on hold after a variety of political figures and organizations filed suit against the Federal Election Committee to block enforcement.
The 300-page ruling also upheld a ban on political advertising by special-interest groups 60 days before Election Day.
The court struck down, however, a provision that barred minors under the age of 18 from making monetary contributions to political campaigns, calling it an unconstitutional restriction of free speech.
The American Center for Law and Justice, an international public-interest law firm, called today’s decision “an enormously important First Amendment victory” for minors, but a slap in the face for adults.
ACLJ represented six politically active teens from Alabama, Georgia, and Florida – between the ages of 13 and 17 – who argued the law prevented them from exercising their First Amendment rights.
“While it is encouraging that the high court acted to protect the constitutional rights of minors, it is unfortunate that the court turned its back on protecting the constitutional rights of advocacy groups,” said ACLJ’s chief counsel, Jay Sekulow. “By upholding the constitutionality of the law’s advertising ban, advocacy groups will be effectively shut out of being able to express their opinions and views on the moral and cultural issues that play a key role in elections. The free-speech rights of minors were protected, but the free-speech rights of other Americans suffered a serious setback with this decision.”
The majority opinion dispelled free-speech objections raised, ruling the government’s interest in preventing political corruption outweighed limitations on free speech.
Chief Justice William Rehnquist and Justices Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas and Anthony Kennedy offered forceful dissent to the decision.
“The first instinct of power is the retention of power, and under a Constitution that requires periodic elections, that is best achieved by the suppression of election-time speech,” Scalia wrote.
