The Supreme Court began its fall session early in September with a special hearing on the McCain-Feingold Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act, which Bush signed into effect in 2002.
The court is expected to rule on the case by December. The ruling will have a significant impact on the 2004 presidential election campaigns.
Eighty-four plaintiffs joined a lawsuit against the act. According to CNN, the act bans “soft money” contributions to national political parties, imposing limits on individual and corporate contributions. It also bans “advocacy advertisements” from running 60 days prior to Election Day.
The act is a setback for third parties like the Libertarian Party, which relies on donations from citizens to fund campaigns. It also does not keep “soft money” from pouring into Democratic and Republican campaigns through PACs.
This occurs despite the wording of the law prohibiting contribution of funds from a party’s national committee or “any entity that is directly or indirectly established, financed, maintained or controlled by such a national committee.”
PACs are often spawns of their party’s national committees whose interests they represent when raising money for presidential candidates.
Names such as the “Democratic Senate Majority Fund” clearly indicate the organization’s party alignment. Party leaders organize and are key speakers at their fundraising events.
Democrats, in particular, tout the McCain-Feingold because it is meant to curb corruption in campaigns that depend on support from major corporations and rich people. But if they can still funnel money through the PACs, the Democrats’ purpose in supporting the act is not only futile, it’s duplicitous.
No doubt that the Republicans, many of whom supported the bill, have no intention of giving up the corporate investments they so treasure. The first part of the bill is relatively ineffective on the two dominant political parties.
Another concern regarding the act is that its ban on “advocacy advertisements” violates First Amendment rights to free speech and freedom of the press.
According to LP News, one of the Libertarian plaintiffs in the case, Massachusetts gubernatorial candidate Carla Howell said the act “unfairly strengthen[s] the role of the ‘institutional press.'”
Two notable plaintiffs in the case are the American Civil Liberties Union and the James Madison Center for Free Speech. Both of these organizations joined the case because of concerns that the act violates free speech rights.
The ACLU’s Web site states that it would “prohibit the ACLU from broadcasting a radio or TV ad criticizing the civil liberties position of either the president or his opponent” in the 60 days prior to the 2004 election.
Plaintiffs also assert that the act gives the Federal Election Committee “licensing power … and editorial control” over campaigns for federal offices. This violates the First Amendment and a precursor to candidate favoritism by government agencies and, subsequently, by powerful press corporations.
Both key elements of the act-the “soft money” limitations and the 60-day ban on “advocacy advertisements”-leave power in major corporations and government agencies. Citizens and third parties are stripped of power as the bureaucratic policies of both the Republicans and the Democrats dominate the political scene.
A better approach to campaign finance reform would be to leave out the issue of advertisements. Reform should focus on the nature and limitations of contributions to political campaigns, keeping the rights and interests of third parties and politically active individuals in mind.
If justice prevails, the Supreme Court will overturn the law and Congress will have to refine its pretentious efforts at campaign reform.
Katherine Story is a junior history and Spanish major. She can be reached at [email protected]u.