Ruling Denying Antiabortion Group's Request To Circumvent Election Rules Should Be Upheld, Editorial Says

Main Category: Abortion
Article Date: 23 Sep 2008 - 11:00 PDT

email to a friend   printer friendly   view / write opinions   rate article

A federal appeals court should support a ruling by a federal judge in Virginia that upheld federal regulations that limit spending on independent "underhanded attack ads," a New York Times editorial says (New York Times, 9/21). U.S. District Judge James Spencer in Richmond, Va., denied a preliminary injunction against the rules sought by the group The Real Truth About Obama against the Federal Election Commission. The group wanted to block the regulations claiming that the "issue advocacy" ads they want to run are protected by the free-speech rights of the Constitution, but Spencer ruled that the group's arguments lacked constitutional merit (Daily Women's Health Policy Report, 9/12).

According to the Times, "Voters do not need a repeat of operatives from both parties running non-profit shadow operations, fobbing off most vicious attack ads as innocent issue messages." The editorial says, "The courts must uphold the law, heeding [FEC]'s warning of 'serious harm to the public' if the attack group prevails." The group is "posing" as an issue advocacy operation that "trashes" Democratic presidential nominee Sen. Barack Obama's (Ill.) "nuanced position" on abortion rights. The editorial concludes that FEC must be "vigilant" against attempts by independent groups to "mislead voters with fresh lies" (New York Times, 9/21).

Reprinted with kind permission from http://www.nationalpartnership.org. You can view the entire Daily Women's Health Policy Report, search the archives, or sign up for email delivery here. The Daily Women's Health Policy Report is a free service of the National Partnership for Women & Families, published by The Advisory Board Company.

© 2008 The Advisory Board Company. All rights reserved.