California Conservative

In what is sure to have an impact on BCRA’s constitutionality, a 3-judge panel ruled part of BCRA unconstitutional. Here’s what the AP article said:

A federal court on Thursday loosened restrictions on corporations, unions and other special interest groups that run political advertising in peak election season. The 2-1 ruling said groups may mention candidates by name in commercials as long as they are trying to influence public policy, rather than sway an election.
The ruling came in a challenge to the so-called McCain-Feingold law designed to reduce the influence of big money in political campaigns. The law banned groups from using unrestricted money to run advertisements that name candidates two months before a general election or one month before a primary. Some lawmakers have predicted such a ruling would create a loophole in the 2002 law. The case automatically heads to the Supreme Court for review.
The Federal Elections Commission had argued that it needed a consistent “bright line” rule to prevent organizations from influencing elections using phony issue advertisements, but the three-judge panel disagreed. “The virtues of a bright-line rule surely cannot alone justify regulating constitutional speech,” U.S. District Judge Richard Leon wrote. Leon was joined in the opinion by U.S. Court of Appeals Judge David B. Sentelle. U.S. District Judge Richard W. Roberts dissented.

The sooner this unconstitutional abomination is ruled unconstitutional, the better. I’d further ask how the FEC has jurisdiction on issue advocacy ads. After all, addressing issues is part of everyday politicking. It’s sometimes known as lobbying, which is still legal the last time I checked.

I’d further assert that forcing candidates to address important issues during a political campaign is what elections should be about. It’s distressing that politicians think that they shouldn’t be asked to deal with difficult issues during the campaign season. I’d bet that the average citizen thinks that forcing politicians into taking stands on difficult issues would be a refreshing change. This ruling allows that to happen.

Finally, I’d suggest that huge chunks of the BCRA will be ruled unconstitutional by the Roberts Court. I’m basing that opinion on what they did in the case of Vermont’s campaign finance laws. I’m looking forward to the day when the First Amendment is taken literally again. That day can’t come soon enough.

Technorati Tags: First Amendment, McCain Feingold, Supreme Court

Cross-posted at LetFreedomRingBlog

This entry was posted on Thursday, December 21st, 2006 at 4:28 pm and is filed under 1st Amendment, ACLU, Author: Gary Gross, Election 2008, Elections, Judiciary. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.