At the behest of McCain-Feingold’s backers, a federal judge eliminates 15 of 19 FEC rules designed to gut the 2002 campaign finance law. “‘We began to wonder what law they were implementing,’ [Congressman Chris] Shays said. “They were simply trying to rewrite the law to weaken it and put in loopholes.’ Obviously, this decision is coming too late to affect this election cycle much, but perhaps we’ll be able to get a honest sense of McCain-Feingold’s impact in stemming corruption during the 2006 midterms. Update: As you might expect, the FEC will appeal the decision.
Category: McCain-Feingold
The Party’s Over.
Reformers rejoice as interest groups on the left and right sputter to make sense of the brave new McCain-Feingold world. Everyone seems to agree that McConnell v. FEC is both a surprisingly bold decision and bad news for the Dems in the short term. Well, so be it. With the Supreme Court finally admitting that dollars debase democracy, the door is now open for tougher campaign finance laws in the very near future.
Woohoo!
By a vote of 5-4 (Justice O’Connor the swing vote as expected), the Supreme Court upheld the McCain–Feingold soft-money ban today in McConnell v. FEC. Well, Scalia may call this a “sad day for the freedom of speech,” but I for one think this is great, great news. “Money, like water, will always find an outlet,” as the majority put it, but at least the highest Court in the land has now recognized the corrosive impact of unregulated loot on the political process. This decision will hopefully do much to disentangle the pernicious conflation of speech and money in Buckley v. Valeo, and set the stage for continued meaningful campaign finance reform in the years to come. While McConnell v. FEC doesn’t eliminate the bad taste of Bush v. Gore, it is a huge step in the right direction by this Court.
The Big Mo.
As Dean tries to move on by belatedly apologizing for his confederate flag snafu, he is rewarded with an endorsement from the SEIU (and likely the AFSCME), some of the largest unions in the AFL-CIO. (At this point, that sucking sound you hear is Dick Gephardt’s campaign folding in on itself.) Dean — now indisputably the front-runner, and one who’s starting to flirt with inevitability — has also started weighing whether or not to opt out of public financing. Well, while it’s hard to envision a scenario where Dean (or any other Dem) could remain competitive in the general if they do accept public financing (unless they struck a deal with Dubya, which is unlikely to the extreme), this moment does in some way sadly represent the death knell of the current campaign finance system. Perhaps something for the Court to consider in their McCain-Feingold deliberations.
Split Decision?
As noted yesterday, the Court heard arguments this morning on the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (McCain-Feingold). And, in spite of reformers’ earlier hopes, it seems Chief Justice Rehnquist was predisposed against the law, meaning that the fateful decision is probably in the hands of Justice O’Connor, as per usual. Politically speaking, I’d think this Court would have to uphold reform after thrusting themselves so deeply into the Bush v. Gore fiasco, but I guess we’ll see. (Speaking of which, on a side note, conservative zealot Ted Olsen apparently referred to his friend and fellow Richard Mellon Scaife patron Ken Starr as “Justice Starr” during the proceedings, telling him he’ll “have to wait” for his spot on the bench. Sorry, Ken, not in a million years.)
Judgment Day.
Tomorrow, McCain-Feingold finally gets its day in court. For the plaintiffs (aiming to kill the legislation for Big Money), our old friend Ken Starr. For the government (nominally committed to the bill), Ted Olsen. For the reforms, former Clinton Solicitor General Seth Waxman. All in all, it should be a doozy..if I had my druthers, of course, the Court will not only uphold McCain-Feingold but revisit the “money = protected speech” formulation drawn in Buckley v. Valeo. In terms of constitutional principle, it’s one person, one vote…dollars shouldn’t enter the equation.
Here Comes the Judge.
As McCain-Feingold nears its day in court, advocates and opponents of reform look to Chief Justice Rehnquist as a major swing vote (along with Justice O’Connor). Hmmm…I have to say I don’t have much faith in Rehnquist’s jurisprudence at this point, but perhaps he’ll surprise me.
The Shape of Things to Come?
The Supreme Court votes 7-2 (Scalia and Thomas dissenting, of course) to reject non-profit exemptions from campaign finance laws. While critics of reform are arguing otherwise, I’d think this bodes very well for McCain-Feingold, which will be taken up in the fall.
McCain-Feingold Mulligan.
In suspending their recent convoluted ruling on McCain-Feingold today until the Supreme Court has a go, the DC District Court once again puts a halt to soft money fundraising for the time-being. No word yet if this stay will accelerate the timetable for the Supremes hearing the case.
Dollars and Sense.
In the longest and most complicated opinion in its history, the US District Court for DC struck down some of the McCain-Feingold bill yesterday, while still upholding some of its key legal premises. While this convoluted decision opens the door for the rapacious campaign days of yore, it also sets the stage for a definitive Supreme Court decision in the Spring. Looks like Rehnquist and co. will get a chance to atone at least partially for Bush v. Gore.