U.S. Supreme Court Rules on Constitutionality of Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act U.S

SILHA CENTER or MEDIA ETHICS This Issue's Highlights Volume 9, Numl:a-1 Fall2003 U.S. Supreme Court Rules on Constitutionality of Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act U.S. Supreme Court Rules on Constitutionality Pg 1 Access to Information and the U.S. Supreme Court Of Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act Pg 3 n Dec. I 0, 2003, a sharply divided Supreme Court, in McConnell v. Federal Court Rules on Access to Information Election Commission, 124 S.Ct. 619, upheld the constitutionality of the Pg. 8 Ocore provisions ofthe Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of2002 (BCRA) I ,cgislators Consider Laws Affecting Access to lnfonnation which seeks to eliminate "soft money" contributions to federal election campaigns l'g 9 and ban "issue ads" in advance of federal elections. Court Rules on Access to Proceedings The Act, also called McCain-Feingold after its chief sponsors in the U.S. Senate, l'g I 0 Sens. John McCain (R-Ariz.) and Russell Feingold (D-Wis.), is the most sweeping Freedom of Information Act Updates reform in campaign finance since the Watergate era. The Act will change how federal Pg. II candidates and political parties raise and spend campaign funds as well as how they, Update: Endangered Journalists Around the World and others, seek to sway voters. Pg 13 Justice Sandra Day O'Connor again provided the pivotal vote on the high court, Reporters' Privilege Update joining Justices'John Paul Stevens, David H. Sout!'!r, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, and Stephen Pg 15 G. Breyer in upholding BCRA "in the main." Journalists Grapple with Ethics Issues Reviewing the constitutionality of BCRA required the court to examine to what Pg 19 extent Congress may regulate campaign fundraising and electioneering without U.S. Supreme Court Refuses to Review impairing the First Amendment's ultimate guarantee: the freedom to criticize the Rossignol v. Voorhaar government. Pg. 22 The decision, including its dissents, totaled nearly 300 pages. The high court Roundup: Ethical Issues in the Media Pg. 23 tackled BCRA by issuing three separate opinions. Justice John Paul Stevens and Final Call Not Required to Pay Damages for Use of O'Connor paired to deliver a joint opinion for the court for Titles I and II ofBCRA, Photos: Baseball Team Freezes out Denver Post which contain its key soft money and issue advertising provisions. Chief Justice Pg. 27 William H. Rehnquist delivered the opinion of the court for the third and fourth titles Internet Updates of the Act, and Justice Breyer delivered the opinion of the court for BCRA's fifth title. Pg 28 New Laws Promote Consumer Privacy, Curb Buckley v. Valeo: setting the stage for BCRA Commercial Speech The Supreme Court first examined the interplay between campaign finance reform Pg. 31 and the freedom of speech inBuckleyv. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1 (1976). In 1974, in the wake FCC Updates of Watergate, Congress amended the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 to limit Pg.33 campaign contributions and independent expenditures (expenditures not made by li .S. Supreme Court Decides Not to Review the candidate or his or her campaign). In Buckley, the court held that preventing Disparagement Suit Against Consumer Reports corruption and the appearance of corruption was a constitutionally sufficient Pg. 34 justification for limiting campaign contributions. Copyright Updates The primary result of the Buckley ruling was to create two categories of campaign Pg. 35 contributions: hard money and soft money. "Hard money" is contributions "made by International Media Law any person for the purpose of influencing any election for Federal office." 2 U.S.C. § Pg 38 431 (8)(A)(i). "Soft money" is contributions made to influence state or local elections. Celebrities and Privacy Prior to BCRA, soft money contributions were not limited or regulated by the federal Pg 40 government. The distinction between hard and soft money created a system where Post War Iraq Updates contributors would give money to federal candidates up to the federal limits and then Pg 43 funnel their additional contributions to national political parties for activities at the Silha Lecture state and local level. The distinction between hard and soft money was blurred by a Pg 51 series of decisions by the Federal Election Commission (FEC) which allowed soft money to be used for mixed-purpose activities which would benefit state and local candidates and federal candidates, such as get-out-the-vote efforts or generic party SCHOOL OF JOURNALISM advertising. The political parties also frequently transferred soft money to & MASS COMMUNICATION independent groups that spent the money on issue advertising, including "attack <Ott fGE Of Ll8~~ol.l oi.~TS 1 ads." l NtVERSIH'''' OF MtNNESUT:\ McCain-Feingold, continued on page 2 McCain-Feingold, continued from page 1 Part~es could do this bec~us~ the Buckley court held that preventing corruption and the appearance of corruptiOn was not a constitutiOnally sufficient justification for limiting independent expenditures. In Buckley, the Court ruled that these expenditures could be capped only 11f those making the expenditures expressly advocated the election or defeat of a clearly identified candidat,~. Thus, Congress could regulate express advocacy, but not issue advocacy. Express advocacy entails using such "magic words" as "Elect C_andidate X" or '_'Vote Against Candidate Y." Issue advocacy allows individuals and groups to promote or dispa_rage a candidate so long as they do not expressly use such magic words. Because issue advocacy remamed unregulated after Buckley, the use of "issue ads" as attack ads mushroomed. In 1998, the Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs concluded that the "soft money loophole" had led to a "meltdown" of the campaign finance system intended "to keep corporate, union and large individual contributions from influencing the electoral process." The Committee found that issue ads, although The Court held that technically independent of federal candidates, were often coordinated or controlled by the candidates' the BCRA's campaigns. restrictions on As a result of these expanded and permitted uses of soft money, soft money accounted for 42% of the over $1 billion spent by the national political parties in the 2000 election. soft money Seeking to remove soft money from federal election campaigns and to ban issue advertising which donations identified, and muddied, federal candidates, Congress passed the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of2002. have only a marginal impact The Stevens-O'Connor joint opinion Title I ofBCRA prohibits political parties and candidates from soliciting, receiving, directing, or spending on free speech. any soft money. The Supreme Court looked to Buckley for the appropriate standard of review for the BCRA's restriction on soft money contributions. The Court adopted the standard of review that such restrictions must be "closely drawn" to match a sufficient government interest. The Court held that the BCRA's restrictions on soft money donations have only a marginal impact on the free speech of contributors, candidates, officeholders, and political parties. The Court opined that the restrictions do "little more than regulate the ability of wealthy individuals, corporations, and unions to contribute large sums of money to influence federal elections, federal candidates, and federal officeholders.,. Thus, the Court concluded that the federal government's interest in preveming corruption and the appearance of corruption of federal officeholders and candidates was a sufficient government interest and the means chosen were closely drawn. Title II of BCRA seeks to stamp out attack ads by regulating independent expenditures made for "electioneering communication." These communications include any broadcast, cable, or satellite communication that clearly identifies a candidate for federal office and is made within 60 days of a federal election or 30 days of a primary or a nominating caucus or convention and, in the case of non-presidential or vice presidential candidates, is targeted to a relevant electorate of over 50,000 persons. The Act effectively bars televised or radio issue advertising which identifies a federal candidate in the weeks leading up to elections. "Electioneering communications" does not include print or Internet communications or communications appearing in news stories, commentary, or editorials aired on television or radio, if independent of political parties and candidates. Title II also prohibits corporations, both for-profit and not-for-profit, and labor unions from using general treasury funds for communications that are intended to, or have the effi~ct of, influencing the outcome of federal elections. This restriction further limits the role of big money in federal campaigns. Corporations and labor unions must now use regulated political action committees to influence federal elections. The Court found that Congress rightly recognized that attempting to draw a bright line between issue advocacy and express advocacy was futile. The "magic words" requirement of Buckley is "functionally meaningless" when parties or groups may run attack ads so long as they do not expressly call for voting for or against a particular candidate. The court held that the First Amendment does not guarantee an inviolate right to engage in issue advocacy to those seeking to influence federal elections. In sum, the Court in McConnell v. Federal Election Commission expanded Buckley so that Congress' regulatory reach extends to hard and soft money and to express advocacy and issue advocacy in federal campaigns and

Load more