Term: 2005
Docket: 04-1581
Wisconsin Right To Life, Inc. v. Federal Election Commission
- Pro
04-1581 WISCONSIN RIGHT TO LIFE, INC. V. FEC DECISION BELOW: Civ. No. 04-1260, 5/10/05, unpublished CERT. GRANTED 9/27/2005 QUESTION PRESENTED: 1. Whether as-applied challenges are permitted to the prohibition on corporate disbursements for electioneering communications at 2 U.S.C. § 441b after McConnell v. FEC, 540 U.S. 93 (2003). 2. If so, whether the prohibition on electioneering communications is unconstitutional as applied to the facts of this case, and particularly (a) the three particular grass-roots lobbying broadcast communications sponsored by Wisconsin Right to Life, Inc. here and/or (b) grass-roots lobbying communications generally, as carefully defined, with any communications to be funded either from a general corporate account or, alternatively, from a separate bank account to which only qualified individuals may donate, as defined in 2 U.S.C. § 434(f)(2)(E). LOWER COURT CASE NUMBER: 04-1260
The case of Wisconsin Right to Life, Inc. v. Federal Election Commission in 2005 revolved around the issue of campaign finance reform and free speech rights for corporations. The non-profit organization, Wisconsin Right to Life (WRTL), challenged provisions of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (BCRA) that prohibited corporations from funding "electioneering communications" - broadcast ads mentioning a candidate within 30 days of a primary or 60 days before a general election. WRTL argued that these restrictions violated their First Amendment rights as they sought to air ads urging viewers to contact Senators Feingold and Kohl regarding filibusters on judicial nominees during an election period. However, the Supreme Court ruled against WRTL stating that BCRA's financing restrictions were constitutional as applied to the advertisements because they were not issue advocacy protected by the First Amendment but rather express advocacy intended at influencing elections.
In the dissenting opinion for Wisconsin Right to Life, Inc. v. Federal Election Commission, 2005, it was argued that the majority's decision undermines Congress' ability to regulate campaign finance and prevent corruption or its appearance in politics. The dissenters believed that the court should defer to Congress on matters of political judgment regarding campaign financing regulations as they have a more intimate understanding of real-world conditions in election campaigns than courts do. They also contended that this case did not present any new evidence or arguments which would justify overruling previous decisions upholding similar restrictions on corporate funding of electioneering communications within certain periods before an election. Furthermore, they expressed concern about potential negative impacts on public confidence in democracy due to increased corporate influence over elections if such restrictions were invalidated.
