Help us improve in just 2 minutes—share your thoughts in our reader survey.
McConnell v. Federal Election Commission
McConnell v. Federal Election Commission is a 2003 United States Supreme Court case challenging the constitutionality of the "McCain-Feingold" Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 (BCRA), which placed the following restriction on campaigns and contributors:
- banned soft money donations to political parties,
- limited union, corporate and nonprofit organization political advertisements prior to elections, and
- restricted political party use of funds for advertising
The Court upheld the BCRA, but later overturned much of it in their 2010 decision Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission.[1]
Background
In 2002, the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (also known as "McCain-Feingold") banned "unrestricted ("soft money") donations made directly to political parties," placed limits on the advertising of unions, corporations and nonprofit organizations prior to elections, and restricted "political parties' use of their funds for advertising on behalf of candidates."[1] Almost immediately, various challenges to the constitutionality of the Act were made, including one by Senator Mitch McConnell. They were consolidated around McConnell v. Federal Election Commission and went before the United States District Court for the District of Columbia in 2003. The District Court offered a mix ruling, upholding some of the Act's provisions and overturning others. They issued a stay of their ruling, however, since the case was given an "expedited appellate review" by the Supreme Court.[2]
Decision
The Supreme Court's 2003 decision largely upheld the BCRA's limits on "soft money" and electioneering communications, but overturned its ban on party committees making "both coordinated and independent expenditures on behalf of a candidate after that candidate's general election nomination." As a result of the ruling, parties were no longer required to choose between one or the other. Upholding the First Amendment rights of minors, the Court overturned the BCRA's restrictions on contributions from individuals under the age of 18.[2]
Soft money
The Court upheld the Act's limit on "soft money," which upheld "that state and local party committees cannot use nonfederal funds to finance" the following federal election activity:[2]
- "Voter registration activity during the 120 days before an election,"
- "Voter identification, get-out-the vote and generic campaign activity,"
- "A public communication that refers to a clearly identified federal candidate and promotes, attacks, supports or opposes that candidate," and
- "The services of a state committee employee who spends more than 25 percent of his or her compensated time on activities in connection with a federal election."
Electioneering communications
Prior to the BCRA, it had been the case since 1976's Buckley v. Valeo Supreme Court decision that only express advocacy advertisements, which expressly contained statements or support or opposition, were subject to federal disclosure requirements. The court, however, upheld the BCRA's extension of disclosure requirements to electioneering communications, defined as "any broadcast, cable or satellite communication that clearly identifies a federal candidate, airs within 30 days of a federal primary or 60 days of a federal general election and is targeted to the relevant electorate."[2] The Court also upheld the BCRA's requirements to disclose names and addresses of individuals contributing more than $1,000 to the entity creating the electioneering communication.[2] It also upheld the ban on the "use of corporate or union treasury funds to finance electioneering communications."[2]
Party use of funds
The Court struck down as unconstitutional the "provision requiring political parties to choose between coordinated and independent expenditures on behalf of a candidate once he or she receives the party's nomination." In their decision, the Court noted that, "[t]he fact that the provision is cast as a choice rather than an outright prohibition on independent expenditures does not make it constitutional."[2]
Aftermath
In 2010, the Supreme Court decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission partially overturned McConnell's restrictions on corporate funding by holding "that under the First Amendment corporate funding of independent political broadcasts in candidate elections cannot be limited."[3]
Recent news
TThis section links to a Google news search for the term "McConnell + v. + Federal Election Commission"
See also
- History of campaign finance reform
- Federal Election Commission
- Buckley v. Valeo
- Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission
External links
Footnotes
