A new free-speech advocacy group should win its lawsuit against the Federal Election Commission (FEC) and be able to disregard the federal limit on individual donations, said participants in a symposium on the case at the Cato Institute, a libertarian think tank.
The group SpeechNow.org wants to advertise against candidates who favor campaign-finance reform legislation it sees as limiting free speech. SpeechNow claims the FEC has violated its First Amendment rights of free speech and freedom of association with the yearly limit of $5,000 on individual donations.
This distinctive nature of SpeechNow among political advocacy groups presents a new legal challenge to campaign-finance reform and could result in a proliferation of similar organizations if the courts rule in its favor, symposium participants and a law school professor from California said.
“Would victory for SpeechNow mean that groups of citizens could band together and spend unlimited funds to influence the outcome of elections? The answer is absolutely yes. And I can only hope that if we are successful in this case, many groups — many individuals — would join together and do precisely that,” said Steve Simpson, senior lawyer at the Institute for Justice (IJ), a nonprofit libertarian public-interest law firm that represents the group in the lawsuit.
The FEC considers SpeechNow to be a political committee, which restricts its contributions to $5,000 donations per year from individuals.
David Keating, president of SpeechNow, said he wants his organization to be called an “independent speech group” instead of a political action committee (PAC) or a so-called “527” group, which are not bound to PAC contribution limits but cannot call for the election or defeat of a particular candidate. PACs are able to contribute money to candidates and parties, but SpeechNow will not give to candidates, said Mr. Keating.
SpeechNow wants to focus on defeating Sen. Mary L. Landrieu, Louisiana Democrat, and Rep. Dan Burton, Indiana Republican, for their votes on campaign-finance reform bills, Mr. Keating said. Both are running for re-election this year.
SpeechNow filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia last month. The case will “almost certainly end up in the Supreme Court,” said Richard L. Hasen, professor at Loyola University Law School in Los Angeles.
“It’s going to be a question of how far the new justices on the court are willing to go in terms of striking down long-standing campaign-finance laws,” he said, referring to Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr.
Recent Supreme Court decisions have represented a softened tone toward campaign-finance legislation. In 2006, the court provided an exception to federal campaign-finance law that banned broadcast ads from including a candidate’s name 60 days before an election, allowing a Wisconsin pro-life group to run an ad the court said concerned legislative issues.
The Supreme Court also overturned key parts of Vermont campaign-finance legislation in a separate decision in 2006.
SpeechNow has “a very well-crafted case” that stands “a good chance of winning,” said Michael Malbin, executive director at the nonpartisan Campaign Finance Institute, in an interview.
“The First Amendment guarantees individuals the right to speak without limit. It’s common sense that groups must be allowed to do the same thing,” said Mr. Simpson, the Institute for Justice lawyer.
Donations greater than $5,000 are a must if the organization with six pledged donors is going to be able to run its advertisements, said Mr. Simpson. The cost for modest ad campaigns against two targeted candidates would be $150,000, said Mr. Simpson and Mr. Keating.
FEC spokeswoman Michelle Ryan declined to comment, saying “the FEC does not comment on ongoing litigation.”
Sign up for Daily Newsletters
