| Federal Election Commission v. Wisconsin Right to Life, Inc. | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Supreme Court of the United States |
||||||
| Argued April 25, 2007 Decided June 25, 2007 |
||||||
| Full case name | Federal Election Commission v. Wisconsin Right to Life, Inc. | |||||
| Docket nos. | 06-969 | |||||
| Citations | 551 U.S. 449 | |||||
| Prior history | Injunction denied, No. 04-1260, 2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 29036 (D.D.C. Aug. 17, 2004); injunction denied, appeal dismissed, No. 04-1260, 2004 U.S. App. LEXIS 18795, (D.D.C. Sept. 1, 2004); injunction denied, 542 U.S. 1305 (2004) (Rehnquist, C.J.); dismissed, No. 04-1260, 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17226 (D.D.C. May 9, 2005); probable jurisdiction noted, 126 S. Ct. 36 (2005); vacated and remanded, 546 U.S. 410 (2006); summary judgment granted, 466 F. Supp. 2d, at 202; cert. granted | |||||
| Holding | ||||||
| The Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act's restriction on issue ads in the months preceding elections is unconstitutional. | ||||||
| Court membership | ||||||
|
||||||
| Case opinions | ||||||
| Majority | Roberts (Parts I and II), joined by Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas, Alito | |||||
| Concurrence | Alito | |||||
| Concurrence | Scalia, joined by Kennedy, Thomas | |||||
| Dissent | Souter, joined by Stevens, Ginsburg, Breyer | |||||
| Laws applied | ||||||
| First Amendment to the United States Constitution | ||||||
Federal Election Commission v. Wisconsin Right to Life, Inc., 551 U.S. 449 (2007) ,[1] was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that issue ads may not be banned from the months preceding a primary or general election.
Contents |
In 2002, the Congress passed the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act ("McCain-Feingold") to regulate money in public election campaigns. One provision of the legislation limited "issue ads," those ads using a candidate's name with regards to a particular issue, such as abortion. Section 203 prohibited issue ads within 30 days of a primary election and 60 days of a general election. In McConnell v. Federal Election Commission, the Supreme Court upheld section 203 and other sections of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act against a facial challenge that the law was unconstitutional. This left a significant open question about whether the FEC could constitutionally apply (enforce) the law.
Wisconsin Right to Life Inc., a nonprofit advocacy group, was running ads urging voters to contact their Senators and urge them to avoid filibusters of judicial nominees. The WRTL sought to run their ads through the 2004 General Election; however the McCain-Feingold Act prohibited them from using corporate money to run ads that close to an election. The law was created to weaken the power of the national Political Action Committees. In McConnell v. FEC the court had upheld Congress' ability to regulate "express advocacy" ads. However the WRTL argued that their ads were "issue ads" and did not specifically advocate any particular candidate. They argued that Congress lack a compelling interest to interfere with the First Amendment. The FEC however countered that the ads were "sham issue ads", still having a goal of altering the outcome of the election.
The District Court rejected the FEC's argument and refused to delve into the matter of the intent and underlying meaning of the ads as that would be impractical and would "have a chilling effect on protected speech." The District court only reviewed that actual content of the ad. In doing so the court found that they were not sham ads and did not express specific advocacy for a candidate. Finally they found that the government lacked a compelling interest to abridge free speech.
The question before the court was: Is the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act's ban on the use of corporate treasury funds for political advertisements in the 60 days before an election unconstitutional as applied to advertisements that do not explicitly endorse or oppose a candidate? The Supreme Court, in a 5-4 decision, crafted a major exception to the limitations on broadcast ads within 30 days of a primary or 60 days of a general election. The court ruled that unless an ad could not reasonably be interpreted as anything other than an ad urging the support or defeat of a candidate, it was eligible for an "as applied" exception to the McCain-Feingold limits on issue ads close to an election.
The decision of the court by Chief Justice John G. Roberts is most notable for its strong language (it concludes "Enough is enough") and for demonstrating a skepticism of campaign finance regulation that was absent in McConnell. Roberts' opinion, however, was joined only by Justice Samuel Alito. The rest of the majority consisted of Justices Antonin Scalia, Anthony Kennedy, and Clarence Thomas, who would have gone further and simply reversed McConnell altogether.
Justices John Paul Stevens, Stephen Breyer, David Souter, and Ruth Bader Ginsberg dissented.