Federal Election Commission v. Wisconsin Right to Life; McCain v. Wisconsin Right to Life
Issues
Is the Electioneering Communication prohibition of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act unconstitutional as applied to grassroots lobbying ads, such as those that Wisconsin Right to Life wanted to run in 2004?
In July 2004, Wisconsin Right to Life aired a series of advertisements encouraging Wisconsin voters to urge their U.S. Senators, Russell Feingold and Herb Kohl, to oppose efforts to filibuster President Bush’s federal judicial nominees. The ads came into conflict with the limitations of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act because they coincided with Senator Feingold’s November 2004 re-election bid. The provision at issue prohibits corporations and unions from running ads targeted at a specific candidate within 30 days of a primary or 60 days of a general election. WRTL argues that the Act should not be applied to its ads because they were grassroots “issue ads,” and not “electioneering ads” covered by this Act. The Federal Election Commission contends that the WRTL ads were intended to sway voters in the federal election, and thus the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act should be applied. The Supreme Court’s decision in this case will have an important effect on the delicate balance between the free speech rights guaranteed by the First Amendment and the interests of campaign finance reformers seeking to limit the electoral involvement of special interests, such as corporations and unions, which may improperly influence the electoral process.
Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties
F.E.C. v. Wisconsin Right to Life
Whether the three-judge district court erred in holding that the federal statutory prohibition on a corporation’s use of general treasury funds to finance “electioneering communications” is unconstitutional as applied to three broadcast advertisements that appellee proposed to run in 2004.
McCain v. Wisconsin Right to Life
Whether the three-judge district court erred in holding that Section 203 of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act, 2 U.S.C. § 441b, is unconstitutional as applied to the three advertisements that appellee Wisconsin Right to Life, Inc. sought to broadcast in 2004.
In 2004, many political experts anticipated that members of the U.S. Senate would try to further delay a Senate vote on President George Bush’s judicial nominees with continued filibustering.
Additional Resources
- Wisconsin Right to Life v. F.E.C., Duke Law School
- Supreme Court Urged to Lift Political Ad Restrictions, by Randy Hall, Cybercast News Service