Appeals Court Panel Overturns Campaign Finance Rules In Lawsuit By EMILY's List

Main Category: Abortion
Also Included In: Litigation / Medical Malpractice;  Women's Health / Gynecology
Article Date: 22 Sep 2009 - 4:00 PDT

email to a friend   printer friendly   view / write opinions

On Friday, a federal appeals court panel ruled to overturn 2005 Federal Election Commission regulations that limited how independent political groups can raise and spend so-called "soft money" to advocate for candidates, the Washington Post reports.

Friday's ruling came in response to a lawsuit brought by the not-for-profit EMILY's List, which backs female Democratic candidates who support abortion rights. The group argued that the FEC rules restricted its First Amendment rights by limiting its ability to raise and spend money to influence elections.

The rules were put in place in response to heavy spending and aggressive advertising during the 2004 presidential election by independent political groups -- known as 527s -- such as MoveOn.org and Swift Boats Veterans for Truth. Prior to the new rules, groups could use unlimited amounts of so-called "soft money" donations from unions, corporations and individuals for activities like voter registration drives and issue advertising. The soft money donations could not be used to advocate for a specific candidate, but groups increasingly began to use it for attack ads against candidates. The new rules required groups to rely more on "hard money" --  more strictly regulated contributions from political action committees and individuals -- when they sought to influence an election. Under the rules, 527s were required to use hard money accounts to fund all ads referring to federal candidates. In addition, they had to use hard money for at least 50% of get-out-the-vote efforts and voter registration drives.

In the ruling, Judges Brett Kavanaugh and Karen LeCraft Henderson of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit agreed with EMILY's List that the regulations violate free speech rights. Judge Janice Rogers Brown also said the regulations were invalid, but for different reasons. Kavanaugh wrote in his opinion, "The First Amendment, as the Court has construed it, safeguards the right of citizens to band together and pool their resources ... to express their views about policy issues and candidates for public office." He added that the rules did not serve an anticorruption purpose and had been enacted to "better equalize the voices of citizens and groups who participate in the political process."

FEC spokesperson Judith Ingram said officials are reviewing the ruling. According to the Post, the ruling "could provide a boost to Republicans and their allies as they try to win back Congress in 2010 and the White House in 2012" becuase it makes it easier for independent groups to raise and spend money, which could be "important in countering the fundraising juggernaut of President Obama." The ruling means that independent political groups "are now free to accept unlimited contributions, to spend unlimited funds independently supporting or opposing federal candidates," according to Richard Hasen, an elections law expert at Loyola Law School. Hasen noted that the groups, compared with political parties, are more apt to run negative ads, which "could lead to a more negative campaign season" (Wilber/Eggen, Washington Post, 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.

© 2009 The Advisory Board Company. All rights reserved.