Wes Vernon
Tuesday, June 26, 2001

That assurance comes from the James Madison Center for Free Speech.

The media and Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., himself have been spinning to the decision as a sign that his bill would pass muster in the courts, despite its limitations on First Amendment rights to free speech.

Not so, says James Bobb Jr., general counsel for the center.

All the court said was that contributions to candidates may be limited to prevent corruption (or its appearance) by large contributions, he says.

The court noted a political party is not "so joined at the hip with candidates that most of its spending must necessarily be coordinated spending.” This bodes ill for McCain-Feingold, the attorney argues, because it confirms that the political parties are not just "candidate-election machines,” as McCain-Feingold seems to assume.

Soft money, he adds, refers to money raised by national political party committees that the parties do not use in connection with federal candidates. Parties can operate completely independent from candidates regarding federal elections, and may pursue goals unrelated to federal elections.

National parties use the money to support state parties and state candidates, to get out the vote, and to engage in issue-advocacy.

The court "preserved the status quo by relying on the long line of cases beginning with Buckley vs. Valeo in 1975,” says Bopp. Thus, he maintains the burden of proof still lies with backers of the McCain-Feingold bill.

In another case, he notes, the court held that a political party’s independent spending could not be limited, and that "when parties act independently from candidates or pursue activities that are not contributions to candidates, they may not be constitutionally limited, much less subjected to an outright ban, as in McCain-Feingold.”

A product that might interest you:
Get your site on ALL the top search engines INSTANTLY!