from: http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/0503mccain-feingold.html

'Soft money' ban narrowed
Federal court split on McCain-Feingold reforms

Billy House
Republic Washington Bureau
May. 3, 2003 12:00 AM

WASHINGTON - A divided federal court on Friday struck down as unconstitutional some limits on big-money contributions to political parties contained in a new law that was the largest overhaul of campaign-finance regulations in 30 years.

The ruling

Strikes total ban on "soft money," saying those funds can be raised for party-building activities such as voter registration drives but not for issue ads.

Strikes ban on interest groups airing issue ads mentioning federal candidates in those candidates' districts 30 days before the primary and 60 days before the general election.

Lets stand ban on use of soft money for ads that promote or oppose federal candidates.

The timing of the decision by the special three-judge panel, which also lifted the statute's ban on certain types of political ads before elections and addressed 18 other legal issues, creates immediate uncertainty over rules for the 2004 presidential and congressional elections.

Although triggering an automatic appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court, the ruling also simultaneously bars the Federal Election Commission in the interim from enforcing provisions of the law the court struck down.

"We certainly won on more than we lost on. But it's not a complete victory by any means," said prominent First Amendment lawyer Floyd Abrams, who had argued that the statute criminalizes free speech.

Some groups said Friday that they may quickly seek to delay the ruling from taking effect.

Meanwhile, backers and opponents alike portrayed the three-member judicial panel's ruling as a split decision. They included Senate sponsors of the measure John McCain, R-Ariz., and Russ Feingold, D-Wis., and others, who argued that big money has become too corrupting an influence in politics.

McCain-Feingold: What it entails

Soft money: Bans unlimited soft-money contributions to national political parties, which had become the source of hundreds of millions of dollars for campaign ads and other activities.

Federal candidates are barred from raising soft money, except for groups involved in get-out-the-vote drives and non-profit groups (if money raised is not for federal election activity).

For state and local parties, the soft-money ban's only exception is up to $10,000 per source (or less if there are state laws) to state and local parties for voter-registration and get-out-the-vote drives.

Hard money: Carefully regulates and limits contributions to candidates and parties.

Limits in place since 1974 are raised to compensate for the loss of soft money. Maximum individual donations to congressional and presidential candidates were doubled to $2,000 each for the general elections and primaries.

Limits are raised for House and Senate candidates facing wealthy candidates spending their own money, known as the "millionaire candidate exception."

Issue ads: Forbids labor unions, corporations and independent groups from airing ads that mention a candidate or display his or her image for 30 days before a primary and 60 days before a general election unless they use hard money donated to political action committees and the source is fully disclosed.

Coordination: Candidates and political action committees are not allowed to work together on material intended to communicate with voters.

Proponents: The law is named for its Senate sponsors, John McCain, R-Ariz., and Russ Feingold, D-Wis. Other defenders include the Justice Department and groups such as Democracy 21, a Washington-based interest group backing political reform, and Common Cause, another good-government group.

Opponents: Led by Sen. Mitch McConnell, R-Ky, there are more than 80 plaintiffs challenging the law, including the National Rifle Association, the American Civil Liberties Union, the Republican National Committee and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. The legal team includes Floyd Abrams, a prominent First Amendment lawyer, and former Whitewater special prosecutor Kenneth Starr.

Source: The Arizona Republic

Both sides emphasized that the final legal chapter on the Bipartisan Campaign Finance Act of 2002 won't be written by the special panel.

Better known by the name McCain-Feingold, the law took effect Nov. 6, one day after the general election. At its core was a ban on "soft money," unlimited contributions made by corporations, unions and wealthy individuals to political parties.

The statute also mostly barred corporations, unions and independent organizations from airing radio and television ads that mention or depict a federal candidate within 30 days of a primary and 60 days of a general election. That provision was aimed at so-called "issue ads" that sometimes are crafted to either promote or attack a candidate. Exempt from the ban were ads purchased with so-called hard money, regulated donations by individuals, that must be disclosed in amounts above $1,000.

The court struck down provisions:

Banning soft-money donations to national political parties. In a 2-1 vote, the court ruled those funds can be raised for general party-building activities, such as get-out-the-vote drives and voter registration drives, but not for issue ads.

Barring special-interest groups from airing issue ads mentioning federal candidates in those candidates' districts 30 days before the primary and 60 days before the general election

Complex ruling

"I am gratified by much of the court's decision today," said Sen. Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., who along with more than 80 groups ranging from the American Civil Liberties Union to the National Rifle Association to the Republican National Committee, challenged the law.

"Obviously, it will take time to review the complex, 1,500-page ruling. That said, this case has always been headed to the U.S. Supreme Court, and I look forward to leading the effort to making our case there."

Legal analysts said the Supreme Court won't have time to hear the appeal in this term, which usually ends in late June. That likely would put off the case until the fall, unless the court held a special hearing.

The three-judge panel let stand the law's ban on the use of soft money for ads that promote or oppose federal candidates.

'Split decision'

McCain, in a statement released with Feingold and Reps. Christopher Shays, R-Conn., and Marty Meehan, D-Mass., said the ruling was a "split decision upholding important provisions." But the group also acknowledged that "unfortunately, it also could create serious loopholes that undermine the law's effectiveness."

"We are confident that the Supreme Court will uphold the provisions of this law as it was originally enacted," McCain and the others said, echoing remarks he made in Phoenix earlier in the day.

The opinion and its attached memos, more than 1,600 pages all told, is believed be one of the longest decisions in federal court history. The information revealed keen disagreements on most issues between Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, the sole Democratic appointee on the panel, and the two Republican appointees, Judges Karen LeCraft Henderson and Richard Leon.

"I believe the statute before us is unconstitutional in virtually all of its particulars," Henderson wrote. "It breaks faith with the fundamental principal - understood by our nation's founding generation, inscribed in the First Amendment and repeatedly reaffirmed by the United States Supreme Court - that debate on public issues should be uninhibited, robust and wide open."

But noting that it took Congress more than six years to draft the statute, Kollar-Kotelly wrote: "This thoughtful and careful effort by our political branches over such a lengthy course of time deserves respect."

None of the challenged sections of the law that Kollar-Kotelly found unconstitutional was "central to its (the law's) core mission," she said.

Bruce LaPierre, a professor at the Washington University School of Law in St. Louis, said Friday that he believes the law is doomed because its drafters and advocates, including McCain, based their arguments almost solely on the claim that there is a perception that high-dollar contributions lead to special access and influence.

"There was not one argument in their briefs that contributions actually cause corruption," said LaPierre, who has argued other landmark campaign-finance limit cases.

"The argument that you justify a law based merely on an appearance, which in fact some studies show is a false appearance, is fundamentally inconsistent with the notion of free speech," LaPierre said.

Legal limbo

Defenders of the law, including the public interest group Democracy 21 and the Justice Department, are expected to decide quickly about asking the Supreme Court to delay portions of the ruling that declared the statute unconstitutional.

"It's going to be a shootout at the O.K. Corral," said Kenneth Gross, a Washington attorney and election-law specialist. "There's going to be a lot of procedural maneuvering before we ever get to the substance of the case."

And until the Supreme Court rules, Abrams and others said, the candidates and parties are in a sort of legal limbo.

"The (political) parties can certainly raise money in a fashion that would have been illegal yesterday, but they still can't spend money in some ways they used to," said Abrams, who, with former Whitewater special prosecutor Kenneth Starr, are part of team of lawyers who challenged the law.

If the three-judge panel's ruling is upheld by the Supreme Court, it would gut key elements of what is perhaps the Arizona's senior senator's most significant congressional achievement.

But Friday in Phoenix, McCain downplayed that, noting other accomplishments in areas of defense and national security, telecommunications and work as chairman of the Commerce Committee, including oversight of the transportation airline bill passed after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, and revising airport and airline security.

Optimism expressed

Still, he said, "I think McCain-Feingold will have more impact on political campaigns than anything that has happened since 1974." He emphasized that the "Supreme Court has stated clearly they will take up expedited procedures as called for in the law."

Reporter Jon Kamman contributed to this article. Reach House at billy.house@arizonarepublic.com or 1-(202)-906-8136.

Please visit these sites which document David Dorn a liar and hate monger who makes up viscous lies about people he doesn't like:

Dorn Agency
Dorn Agency
Dorn Insurance
Dorn Insurance
Dorn Insuranse
Dorn Insuranse
David Dorn Agency
David Dorn Agency
David Dorn Hate Monger
David Dorn Government Snitch?