Federal Election Commission v. Wisconsin Right to Life, Inc.
Federal Election Commission v. Wisconsin Right to Life, Inc. was a federal lawsuit filed by the group Wisconsin Right to Life (WRTL) against the Federal Election Commission (FEC) challenging the federal law prohibiting nonprofits and corporations from airing certain advertisements within 30 days of a primary election or 60 days of a general election.[1]
Lawsuit
Background
In 2002, Congress passed the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act, also known as the McCain-Feingold Act, in an attempt to regulate "issue ads."[2] Issue advocacy refers to political advertising focused on support for or opposition to specific issues rather than a candidate. Issue advocacy is distinguished from express advocacy, which explicitly supports or opposes a particular electoral outcome. Express advocacy advertisements include "for" or "against" statements. Candidate-supported advertisements expressing whether to vote for or against a candidate are an example of express advocacy. Advertisements focused on broader issues, which do not use express statements of support or opposition, are examples of issue advocacy. Issue advertisements may make specific mention of a candidate or official. Still, these advertisements do not directly support or oppose a candidate (however, such ads may urge viewers to contact a named candidate or official).[3]
The Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act defined issue advertisements as electioneering communications. Electioneering communications are distributed within 30 days of a primary or 60 days of a general election. The law prohibited corporations and labor unions from funding issue advertisements.[4] This prohibition was struck down by the United States Supreme Court in 2010 (see below for further details).
Decision
The district court in the case denied Wisconsin Right to Life's (WRTL) request for a preliminary injunction and dismissed the case. WTRL appealed, and the United States Supreme Court vacated the dismissal and returned the case to the district court. The district court ruled in favor of WTRL. As Heidy Abreu and Miguel Loza of Cornell University Law School explained:[5]
| “ | The common denominator between 'express advocacy' and its 'functional equivalent,' as the Supreme Court defined it in McConnell, is the link between words and images used in the ad, and the fitness, or lack thereof, of the candidate running for public office. The absence of that link enables an issue to be fairly regarded as a genuine 'issue ad.'[6] | ” |
The FEC appealed, and the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to review the case. The court voted 5-4 in favor of WRTL. Two of the justices, Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Alito, found that the provision violated the First Amendment as applied to the WRTL case. The other three justices in the majority, Scalia, Kennedy, and Thomas, held that the provision itself was a violation of the First Amendment, and should be struck down.[1]
The ruling did not strike down the provision but held that unless an ad could not be interpreted as anything other than advocating for the election or defeat of a candidate, it could not be regulated under McCain-Feingold.[7]
See also
External links
Footnotes
- ↑ 1.0 1.1 ‘’American Center for Law and Justice’’, “Summary of Federal Election Commission v. Wisconsin Right to Life, Inc.,” accessed September 23, 2015
- ↑ Federal Election Commission, "Campaign Finance Law Quick Reference for Reporters," accessed September 25, 2015
- ↑ Brennan Center, "Express Advocacy and Issue Advocacy: Historical and Legal Evolution of Political Advertising," accessed February 12, 2015
- ↑ FEC, "McCONNELL v. FEC," accessed April 6, 2025
- ↑ ‘’Cornell University Law School’’, “Federal Election Commission v. Wisconsin Right to Life (06-969); McCain v. Wisconsin Right to Life (06-970),” April 25, 2007
- ↑ Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source.
- ↑ ‘’Findlaw’’, “FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION v. WISCONSIN RIGHT TO LIFE, INC.,” June 25, 2007
