| ||
| ||
| ||
 |
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
High court hears campaign reform caseKen Starr argues the law inhibits free speech
From Bill Mears
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The Supreme Court Monday held a special session to hear arguments over campaign finance reform -- a case in which the political and financial stakes could be enormous, with tens of millions of dollars in campaign donations hanging in the balance. The four-hour session centered around arguments on free speech vs. the government's ability to regulate. Attorney Ken Starr -- who represents Senate Republican whip Mitch McConnell of Kentucky and other challengers to the campaign finance law -- said the law violates the First Amendment right of free speech. Mitchell was a key opponent to the law when it was in Congress. "This law intrudes deeply into political life. It goes too far," said Starr, the former independent counsel whose investigation ultimately led to President Clinton's impeachment. Solicitor General Ted Olson defended the law and at one point got into a tense exchange with Justice Antonin Scalia, who raised questions about the constitutionality of the law. "Why are you picking on the parties?" Scalia said. "Justice Scalia, Congress did not pick on the parties. The party and the candidates are one in the same. Political parties wield enormous power and should be subject to regulation," Olson responded. The court returned a month early from its traditional summer recess to hear arguments Monday in an election fund-raising case. The justices have signaled keen interest in the issue and the desire to resolved it before the primary election season gets under way this winter. The political and financial stakes could be enormous, worth potentially tens of millions of dollars in campaign donations that could affect presidential and congressional races in 2004 and beyond. 'Big, complex and controversial'At issue is a sweeping federal law setting strict limits on many types of political fund-raising, including so-called "soft money" and spending on media ads. The justices will review a rulling by the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia that upheld some of those limitations, while striking down others as unconstitutional. "This case is big, complex and controversial," said Roy Schotland, a Georgetown University law professor and campaign finance expert. Supporters of the so-called McCain-Feingold law say it would prevent corruption in politics. Opponents counter it would criminalize free speech and the right of groups to associate with the government. In a highly unusual move, four hours of public oral arguments were heard in a special session. Supreme Court arguments usually last only one hour. "If the justices uphold the law, it could mean a major change in how political parties operate," said Larry Noble, executive director of the Center for Responsive Politics. "It will be interesting to see if they accept the idea that not only actual corruption in politics needs to be addressed, but the appearance of corruption as well, ensuring public confidence and all that." The court consolidated various challenges to the law overhauling much of the nation's election procedures. Dozens of interested groups on both sides of the issue had filed lawsuits in the case. Each of the parties was allowed to file legal briefs outlining its position in the case. Lawyers in the case have been scrambling to meet tight deadlines on filing legal briefs in time for the justices to review them before the arguments. Until the justices rule, the law remains in effect. A decision could come by the end of the year. "The impact of the ruling will be large," Schotland said. "If the court upholds the law, it could prove very bad for the future of political parties. It will mean money would flow in a different direction, controlled by special interest, or single-issue groups." Schotland and other and election experts think more money would pass hands in election cycles, since many groups would be competing for attention, reducing the fund-raising efficiency and organization parties now provide. The Supreme Court was given authority by Congress to hear the case on an expedited schedule after a lower federal court last month issued a divided opinion. Taking sidesThe law took effect the day after the November 2002 elections. It bans "soft money," the unlimited and unregulated contributions to national political parties; and bans advocacy ads 60 days before an election. Advocacy ads are commercials criticizing or supporting a candidate's stand on an issue. The law also imposes contribution limits and donor disclosure requirements. Sponsored by 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 current election cycle leading up to the 2004 elections. After its passage, 84 plaintiffs filed a variety of lawsuits, led by McConnell and a bipartisan coalition of groups ranging from the AFL-CIO, the National Rifle Association, the American Civil Liberties Union, the Republican National Committee and the California Democratic Party. Those lawsuits were consolidated into one case. Groups like the NRA say their efforts to promote favorable legislation would be compromised under the current law. "We need to be able to communicate to our members and gun owners in any given state and to suggest that we can't do that for risk of being thrown in jail is simply outrageous," said Chris Cox, NRA executive director. The Federal Election Commission and the 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 May 2, the federal court handed both sides partial victories and defeats. The federal court upheld the ban on advocacy ads 60 days before an election, but only when the ads are "suggestive of no plausible meaning other than an exhortation to vote for or against a specific candidate." And the judges ruled political parties can still raise and spend soft money for "party building" activities such as get-out-the vote drives and overhead costs. The court said banning such activities would be a violation of free speech. Supporters of campaign finance reform contend the idea of equating political dollars to free speech has led to rich donors drowning out the free-speech rights of those with less money. But opponents of the law counter that in addition to constitutional concerns the law would not eliminate problems associated with big money campaigns, only shift its source. Instead of national parties controlling the money and power, special interest groups would dominate, since they would be exempt from soft money restrictions, opponents say.
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
