- ‘Tis the Season: London florist creates $4.6 million Christmas wreath
- No tailgating allowed at Super Bowl XLVIII
- Pentagon to transport African troops to Central African Republic
- Chinese man fed up with his girlfriend’s shopping jumps to his death
- Ukraine leader to talk with protesters; Washington urges caution
- Pope Francis: A nun saved my life
- Israeli P.M. Netanyahu backs out of Mandela funeral
- Elian Gonzalez makes first trip outside Cuba since custody battle
- U.S., British intelligence agents enter online sci-fi world to spy on gamers
- Sarah Palin to host the outdoors show ‘Amazing America’
High court remands ruling in campaign-law challenge
The Supreme Court yesterday overturned a lower court’s ruling that had barred an anti-abortion group from running television advertisements mentioning a specific senator during his 2004 re-election campaign.
At issue is a challenge by Wisconsin Right to Life (WRTL) to ad limits set by the 2002 McCain-Feingold campaign-finance reform law. The law bans corporate or union money from paying for ads that identify candidates for federal office by name two months before Election Day.
In what some court observers saw as a move to sidestep a major review of the law until the pending nomination of Judge Samuel A. Alito Jr. to the high court is resolved, the justices delivered a short, unsigned opinion, sending the case back to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia for further review.
“I think they tried to make a narrow ruling while the court’s membership was intact, thereby precluding the need for rehearing when Alito joins the court,” said Thomas E. Mann, a senior fellow of governance studies at the Brookings Institution.
WRTL argues the law does not clearly define what ads are restricted during the two-month blackout period before elections. Specifically, the group sought to have the law declared unconstitutional when applied to its own 2004 ads against Sen. Russell D. Feingold, Wisconsin Democrat, who at the time was running for re-election.
WRTL argued its television ads should be immune because they did not directly call on voters not to vote for Mr. Feingold, but instead served as “grass-roots lobbying” ads urging people to phone senators and ask them to oppose the filibustering of Bush administration judicial selections.
The U.S. appeals court disagreed, citing a 2003 Supreme Court ruling, which upheld the McCain-Feingold law. In remanding the case yesterday, the justices said the appeals court had erred in reading the 2003 ruling as a permanent block on all future challenges to McCain-Feingold’s ad limits.
Depending on how the appeals court rules in light of the order, scholars say the case could end up back at the high court.
“The case carries significant potential to limit the reach of the electioneering-communications restrictions,” said Lillian Riemer BeVier of the University of Virginia School of Law. “But we don’t know whether that’s going to happen for quite a while, given how long the litigation process takes.”
“I think the Wisconsin Right to Life people do have a case, based on their allegations that they are a citizens’ grass-roots political organization and not a profit-making (or even a non-profit) corporation,” she said. “The ‘let’s get big money out of politics’ rationale of the electioneering-communications restrictions does not apply to them.”
Mr. Mann, meanwhile, said the justices appear “to have initiated a judicial effort to define genuine ‘issue ads.’”
“It is not at all clear where this will lead,” he said. “I suspect the district court panel will rule against WRTL on the merits of their argument that their ad should not have been covered by the law.”
In other action, the justices:
Set a March 28 oral argument for the challenge to President Bush’s authority to try Osama bin Laden’s former driver, Salim Ahmed Hamdan, by special military tribunal at U.S. Naval Base Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, where the Yemeni man has been detained.
Refused to hear an appeal brought by the maker of BlackBerry, the hand-held wireless e-mail device, to long-running claims that the Canada-based company has violated intellectual-property rights of a U.S. patent holder.
By Tom Fitton
New photos confirm the attack's coordination and its cover-up
- Chinese man fed up with his girlfriend's shopping jumps to his death
- Israeli P.M. Benjamin Netanyahu backs out of Nelson Mandela funeral
- Obama lied about Syrian chemical attack, 'cherry-picked' intelligence: report
- MSNBC host: Obamacare a 'wealthy white men' racist word
- Lawmakers see 'false narrative' of Obama as a terrorist fighter
- CURL: Obama tells a whopper on IRS scandal
- Ted Cruz sees legal landmines ahead for Obamacare
- WOLF: The president's other Obamacare lies
- Bill OReilly reminds: Nelson Mandela was a communist
- MILLER: Brady Campaign says Colorado recalls due to NRA, not grassroots opposition to gun control
Independent voices from the The Washington Times Communities
The Constitution: Every issue, every time. No exceptions, no excuses. And how to get from here to there.
Crystal Wright is a black conservative woman living in Washington, D.C.
All of the world’s problems, solved on your back porch
Why can’t humans just be free to be humans?
White House pets gone wild!
Let it snow