The Campaign Legal Center: Court Cases of Interest

The Campaign Legal Center filed a legal brief today opposing a request by Wisconsin Right to Life (WRTL) to declare unconstitutional and enjoin certain provisions of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 (BCRA)as applied to W RT L's proposed broadcast communications.

The Legal Center was joined by Senator John McCain (R-AZ), Representatives Christopher Shays (R-CT) and Martin Meehan (D-MA) — three of the four principal sponsors of BCRA. (Sen. Russ Feingold (D-WI) did not join in the brief because the ads at issue in the case were directed against him). Democracy 21 and the Center for Responsive Politics also joined in filing the brief, which was submitted to the United States District Court for the District of Columbia .

The lawsuit was brought in 2004 by Wisconsin Right To Life, a nonprofit corporation that had sought to broadcast electioneering communications within 30 days of the 2004 Wisconsin primary. BCRA prohibits corporations from using their general treasury funds for such ads, but permits such expenditures by corporate PACS, which are subject to certain regulations on contributions, expenditures and disclosure.

Wisconsin Right to Life, which receives corporate money from for-profit corporations as well as from individuals, wanted to use its general treasury funds to pay for the ads and asked the Court to declare unconstitutional the provisions of BCRA that bar such electioneering communications using corporate funds. In August 2004, the three-judge federal court denied W RT L's request for an injunction. On appeal, U.S. Chief Justice William S. Rehnquist denied W RT L's application for an injunction pending appeal. W RT L has now asked the federal court to grant it a summary judgment in the case.

Gerald Hebert, director of litigation for the Legal Center , expressed confidence that the three-judge court would not declare the provisions of BCRA unconstitutional or enjoin the FEC from enforcing its broadcast restrictions: "This is a pretty simple case. Just 18 months ago, the Supreme Court upheld the very provisions Wisconsin Right to Life is now attacking. The Court declined W RT L's invitation not to follow the law in 2004 and I am confident the Court will decline once again." Hebert added that the W RT L can run these ads so long as they use their PAC money—an alternative the Supreme Court noted was a viable alternative when it upheld the restrictions that W RT L now challenges.

"W RT L chose not to avail themselves of that opportunity last year," Hebert said. "They basically have imposed restrictions on themselves and are now asking the federal court to give them relief from their self-imposed restrictions." said Hebert.

Trevor Potter, president of the Campaign Legal Center and a former FEC chairman, said the fact the amicus brief was submitted to the court by Senator McCain and Representatives Shays and Meehan, principal sponsors of BCRA and active defenders of the law when it has undergone legal challenge, should be of significance to the court. He said: "These members have remained active in cases involving the interpretation and implementation of BCRA, and as candidates and officeholders, they have an interest in insuring that BCRA serves its intended purposes of deterring corruption or the appearance of corruption that arises when corporations attempt to use financial resources to influence federal elections."

Click here to view the Legal Center's Amicus Brief in the WRTL case.

Click here to view the Motion to file.

Click here to view the proposed amici order.

Reform Groups File Legal Brief Defending Restrictions on Corporations Using Soft Money to Broadcast Election Communications

The Campaign Legal Center, Democracy 21 and the Center for Responsive Politics, three of the nation's leading campaign finance and election reform groups, filed a legal brief today opposing the request of the Wisconsin Right to Life's efforts to enjoin the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 (BCRA) as applied to certain proposed broadcast communications. They were joined in their filing by Senator John McCain (R-AZ), and Representatives Christopher Shays (R-CT) and Martin Meehan (D-MA) —three of the four principal sponsors of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act.[1] The brief was submitted to the United States District Court for the District of Columbia which is scheduled to hear arguments in the case Thursday, August 12, 2004 .

The lawsuit was brought by Wisconsin Right To Life (WRTL), a nonprofit corporation that seeks to broadcast electioneering communications within 30 days of the Wisconsin primary (September 14). BCRA prohibits corporations from doing so using their general treasury funds, but permits such expenditures by corporate PACS, which are subject to certain regulations on contributions, expenditures and disclosure. Wisconsin Right to Life, which receives corporate money from for profit corporations as well as from individuals, wants to use its general treasury funds to pay for ads within 30 days of the Wisconsin primary. WRTL has asked the Court to declare unconstitutional the provisions of BCRA that bar such electioneering communications using corporate funds.

Gerald Hebert, Director of Litigation for the Campaign Legal Center , expressed confidence that the three-judge court would not declare the provisions of BCRA unconstitutional or enjoin the FEC from enforcing its broadcast restrictions: "This is a pretty simple case. Earlier this year the Supreme Court upheld the very provisions that Wisconsin Right To Life is attacking. All the Court has to do is follow the law." Hebert added that the WRTL can run these ads so long as they use their PAC money—an alternative the Supreme Court noted when it upheld the restrictions that WRTL now challenges. "It is impossible for WRTL to show that they are being irreparably harmed by a statute that gives them an alternative for funding their ads but they have chosen not to avail themselves of that opportunity," Hebert added. "They basically have imposed restrictions on themselves and then asked the Court to give them relief because of their self-imposed restrictions." said Hebert.

Hebert said the presence on the brief of Senator John McCain, as well as Representatives Shays and Meehan, would benefit the three-judge court as these Members of Congress helped craft the landmark campaign finance reform bill and defended BCRA in the case before the D.C. court and the Supreme Court last year. Hebert noted that these Members have remained active in cases involving the interpretation and implementation of BCRA, adding: "As candidates and officeholders, these Members have an interest in insuring that BCRA serves its intended purposes to deter corruption and the appearance of corruption that arises from the use of soft money by corporations to influence federal elections."

[1] The fourth principal sponsor of BCRA, Senator Russell Feingold (D-WI), is not participating in the case since the ads at issue in the suit refer to him.

Click here to view the amicus brief.

Click here to view the exhibits.

Click here to read the amici's motion.