| ||
| ||
| ||
 |
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
High court to hear campaign finance case early
From Bill Mears
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The U.S. Supreme Court will break from its usual schedule to hear arguments in the campaign finance reform case in September, underscoring the issue's importance and the urgency to resolve it before the primary election season gets under way next winter. The justices announced Thursday that the court will hold a special session, scheduling four hours of arguments September 8. The session comes in the court's summer recess, nearly a month before justices were scheduled to resume hearing cases. Court arguments usually last an hour. The campaign finance law took effect the day after the November 2002 elections. It bans so-called soft money -- unlimited and unregulated contributions to national political parties. It also prohibits advocacy advertisements 60 days before an election -- ads criticizing or supporting a candidate's stand on an issue. In addition, the law imposes contribution limits and donor disclosure requirements. Supporters of the law says it is designed to prevent corruption in politics. Opponents say it would criminalize free speech. The court consolidated various challenges to the congressional law overhauling much of the nation's election procedures. Each of the parties will be allowed to file legal briefs outlining their position in the case. The court did not announce who will be allowed to address the justices in open arguments. Until the Supreme Court rules, the law remains in effect. Congress gave the court the authority to hear the case on an expedited schedule after a lower federal court issued a divided opinion last month. Sponsored by U.S. Sens. John McCain, R-Arizona, and Russell Feingold, D-Wisconsin, and Reps. Christopher Shays, R-Connecticut, and Marty Meehan, D-Massachusetts, the bill was signed by President Bush and applies to the election cycle leading up to the 2004 elections. After its passage, 84 plaintiffs filed a variety of lawsuits, led by U.S. Sen. Mitch McConnell, R-Kentucky, and a bipartisan coalition of groups ranging from the AFL-CIO, National Rifle Association, American Civil Liberties Union, Republican National Committee and California Democratic Party. Those lawsuits were consolidated into one case, McConnell v. FEC (02-1674). The Federal Election Commission and Justice Department are the lead defendants, supported by the bill's congressional sponsors and a variety of campaign reform groups. In a sprawling 1,600-page decision issued May 2, the lower court handed both sides partial victories and defeats. The three-judge federal panel upheld the ban on advocacy ads 60 days before an election, but only when the ad is "suggestive of no plausible meaning other than an exhortation to vote for or against a specific candidate." The court ruled political parties can still raise and spend soft money for "party building" activities such as get-out-the vote drives and overhead costs. It said banning such activities was a violation of free speech.
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
