September 28, 2005
DEATH TO BUCKLEY:
High Court to Decide Campaign Finance Cases (Charles Lane, 9/28/05, Washington Post)
Campaign finance reform emerged as a major theme of the coming Supreme Court term yesterday, as the justices announced that they will rule on federal and state efforts to regulate campaign-season advertising by advocacy groups and to limit spending by candidates. [...]A three-judge panel of the U.S. District Court in Washington ruled last year that the Supreme Court's 2003 ruling upholding McCain-Feingold precluded such a case-by-case effort to avoid the law's provisions. The Bush administration urged the Supreme Court to uphold that decision without a hearing, which the high court could have done if five justices had agreed.
McCain-Feingold was upheld 5 to 4 in 2003. Justice Sandra Day O'Connor was a member of that majority but will leave the court as soon as a successor is confirmed by the Senate.
"O'Connor was the swing vote" in that case, said Rick Hasen, a specialist in election law at Loyola Law School in Los Angeles. "This could provide the vehicle for a more conservative court . . . to reverse that aspect" of the 2003 decision. [...]
The second case accepted yesterday involves three consolidated challenges to a 1997 Vermont law that puts a ceiling on how much a candidate for state office can spend. Under the law, candidates for governor may spend no more than $300,000 per two-year election cycle. Candidates for lieutenant governor may spend no more than $100,000, and smaller limits apply to other offices.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit, based in New York, upheld the Vermont law last year, ruling that the law was carefully designed to meet compelling needs to avoid political corruption, or the appearance of corruption, and to prevent fundraising from taking too much of politicians' time and attention.
But Vermont's Republican Party and other political activists say the law violates their constitutional right to free speech. They note that the Supreme Court struck down expenditure limits on First Amendment grounds in its landmark 1976 decision Buckley v. Valeo , and they argue that the 2nd Circuit was wrong to find that Buckley left some room for laws like Vermont's.
Supporters of campaign spending limits, including 13 states, a bipartisan group of eight U.S. senators, the NAACP and 17 current and former state judges, urged the court to hear the case.
But Hasen said this strategy may backfire, because it is likely the court took the case to reverse the 2nd Circuit's ruling.
Two other appeals courts had previously struck down expenditure limits, he noted, but the Supreme Court did not decide to review those rulings.
Hopefully Bush appointee's will lead the way in gutting CFR, the one big mistake of his presidency. Posted by Orrin Judd at September 28, 2005 9:09 AM
This ought to be interesting, in terms of the future Supreme Court hearing. CFR has inadvertently benefitted Republicans more, by making the Democrats more dependant on rich loons like George Soros, who pull the party's positions out of the mainstream. So it would be in their long-term interest to get the court to kill off the law.
But their anti-Bush Pavlovian response has become so ingrained by now that the default reaction even by people who should know better is anyone Bush nominates will likely be against CFR, so they'll support it just to score a few short-term political points. That may make sense for those Democrats who actually believe the same things Soros, MoveOn, Kos and the DU folks believe, but its hard to imagine the other veteran pols don't chaffe at having their strings pulled by these groups' cash donations.
Posted by: John at September 28, 2005 9:51 AMWhen Bush signed the bill, the CW was that the question of first amendement rights would be brought before the Supreme Court, and it looks like that's exactly what's going to happen.
Posted by: at September 28, 2005 10:20 AMYes, but the Court ruled agaqinst those rights.
Posted by: oj at September 28, 2005 10:47 AMYes. But they'll get another chance now to get it right (pun intended).
Posted by: erp![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://brothersjuddblog.com/nav-commenters.gif)
at September 28, 2005 11:16 AM
Well, if the Court upholds the First Amendment and reduces the authority of judicial precedent, it will be a two-fer for conservatives.
I won't get my hopes up though.
Posted by: pj at September 28, 2005 11:35 AMJohn:
No, the benefit was advertent, but doesn't justify the law.
Posted by: oj at September 28, 2005 11:39 AMMcCain-Feingold had been sold as an anti-NRA measure. The appearance of impropriety the law sought to avoid was that occasioned by individuals associating to influence the legislative process.
As whenever such a radical maneuver is attempted, its unintended consequences went far beyond its original motive. It certainly is not settled law. On the contrary, it is low-hanging fruit for reversal, and a good way for the Rublicans to toss a nice bone our way.
Posted by: Lou Gots at September 28, 2005 12:45 PMGuns just aren't as important as you think.
Posted by: oj at September 28, 2005 12:54 PMOrrin:
If CFR was a mistake (as I think it was), what does that say about your boy Johnny (Keating5) McCain? And if guns are now not important, what happened to your "long-bow" theory of democracy?
at September 28, 2005 1:22 PM
CFR is the price McCain's soul made him pay for the Keating 5--it's admirable, if tragic.
Guns are good. They just aren't that central to our politics except for when Democrats try limiting them.
Posted by: oj at September 28, 2005 1:34 PMNow, if only McCain would adhere to the law he wrote.....
Posted by: jim hamlen at September 28, 2005 1:55 PMWhich makes them central to our politics.
Posted by: joe shropshire at September 28, 2005 2:35 PMjoe:
No one's mentioned them since November 1994. Even Democrats aren't that suicidal.
Posted by: oj at September 28, 2005 2:39 PMThen why did John Kerry, in mid-election season, take time out to go dove hunting with a covey of photographers?
Posted by: h-man at September 28, 2005 2:49 PMAs I said, central.
Posted by: joe shropshire at September 28, 2005 2:52 PMBecause he did any stupid thing his handlers told him to--or are you arguing that wind-surfing is likewise central?
Posted by: oj at September 28, 2005 2:54 PMNo, the dove hunting wasn't, the silence is.
Posted by: joe shropshire at September 28, 2005 2:54 PMAn issue on which the parties don't have any substantive disagreement anymore isn't an issue.
Posted by: oj at September 28, 2005 3:03 PMAn issue on which one party doesn't even dare open its mouth is certainly still an issue, it's simply an issue settled in favor of the other party.
Posted by: joe shropshire at September 28, 2005 3:21 PMThey can't raise it because they lose their own voters--thus, it's a non-issue.
Posted by: oj at September 28, 2005 3:37 PM