The fundamental attack on free speech that McCain-Feingold foisted upon America has finally received recognition from the federal judiciary. Portions of the BCRA got struck down today in a lawsuit filed by a right-to-life group, as a judge ruled that the campaign-finance restrictions violated the First Amendment:

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.

Wisconsin Right to Life, an anti-abortion group, has been fighting the law since 2004, when it sought to run an advertisement urging voters to contact Wisconsin Sens. Russ Feingold and Herb Kohl, both Democrats, and ask them not to hold up President Bush's judicial nominees.

Because Feingold was running for re-election in 2004, the ad was prohibited. Wisconsin Right to Life argued that it wasn't trying to influence an election and said the law restricted its constitutional right to petition the government.

It's not for nothing that many have termed the BCRA the Incumbent Protection Act. The restriction on political speech that keeps groups from buying advertising that names politicians violates the fundamental reason for the First Amendment -- to allow Americans to criticize their elected officials. While the court did not recognize the entire egregiousness of this BCRA provision, it did recognize that the idea of never being able to name elected officials in advertising within 60 days of an election regardless of the nature of the reference is a ludicrous standard.

The case will now go back to the Supreme Court, which has a few choices regarding this case. They can overturn the ruling of the judges, reaffirming the BCRA and its assault on free political speech. They can, as the AP notes, uphold the narrow nature of today's ruling and create a complicated test for "honest" references to elected officials in issue ads. Lastly, the newly-constituted Roberts court can take this opportunity to reverse the biggest assault on overtly political speech unmatched in generations.

New co-blogger Paul Silver at TMV feels conflicted about this development and asks how we reconcile free speech with some protection against people trying to buy influence -- not a bad question. We certainly cannot fight influence by protecting politicians from critical speech in the last 60 days before an election. The history of campaign-finance reform since its inspiration of Watergate shows that artificial designations on contributions does far more to help hide the influence of money and distance politicians from the messages the money buys.

The real solution is to remove all of these financial shelters for campaign contributions and require nothing but full and immediate disclosure of all donations. It will cut the funding to phony issue organizations and 527s and push the money back to the candidates and the political parties, who can then be held accountable for the messages of the entire campaign. Transparency allows the voters to clearly see whose money funds which candidates, and their votes will determine the legitimacy of those associations, not the FEC and certainly not some prior restraint on political speech.

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this entry is

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference First Hit On The BCRA:

» Score One for Free Speech from Bill's Bites
First Hit On The BCRAEd Morrissey The fundamental attack on free speech that McCain-Feingold foisted upon America has finally received recognition from the federal judiciary. Portions of the BCRA got struck down today in a lawsuit filed by a right-to-life [Read More]

Tracked on December 21, 2006 10:25 PM

» BCRA(p) Partially Flushed from bRight & Early
The Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act, aka McCain-Feingold, aka The Incumbent Protection Act, creates a serious abridgment of free speech while doing little to achieve it’s intended purpose of reducing the influence of big money in political campaig... [Read More]

Tracked on December 21, 2006 11:15 PM

» BCRA(p) Partially Flushed from Iowa Voice
The Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act, aka McCain-Feingold, aka The Incumbent Protection Act, creates a serious abridgment of free speech while doing little to achieve it’s intended purpose of reducing the influence of big money in political campaig... [Read More]

Tracked on December 21, 2006 11:16 PM

» Court Strikes Down Key McCain-Feingold Provision from Outside The Beltway | OTB
A three judge panel yesterday struck down McCain-Feingold’s restrictions on issue advocacy ads. A divided three-judge court ruled yesterday that ads advocating for an issue and mentioning candidates can run during an election, creating a loophole... [Read More]

Tracked on December 22, 2006 11:33 AM

» First ruling against campaign finance reform... from TriggerFinger
[Read More]

Tracked on December 23, 2006 10:18 AM