Advertising

The Seattle Times Company

NWjobs | NWautos | NWhomes | NWsource | Free Classifieds | seattletimes.com

Politics & Government


Our network sites seattletimes.com | Advanced

Originally published Saturday, September 5, 2009 at 6:16 AM

Comments (0)     E-mail E-mail article      Print Print      Share Share

Campaign finance laws before the Supreme Court

The federal and state campaign finance laws and legal interpretations of them at stake as the Supreme Court hears a reargument of Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission:

The Associated Press

The federal and state campaign finance laws and legal interpretations of them at stake as the Supreme Court hears a reargument of Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission:

The court asked lawyers to answer this question: "Should the Court overrule either or both Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce and the part of McConnell v. Federal Election Commission, which addresses the facial validity of Section 203 of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002?"

Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act

Better known as the "McCain-Feingold" Act, that law signed by President George W. Bush made sweeping revisions to campaign finance laws. Named after its Senate sponsors, Republican John McCain of Arizona and Democrat Russ Feingold of Wisconsin, it has been frequently challenged in front of the Supreme Court for its restrictions on what donors, corporations and unions can spend and how they can spend money in federal elections.

Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce

Michigan had prohibited corporations from using general treasury funds to advocate the election or defeat of a candidate. But the state law allowed corporations set up an independent fund for such spending. The Michigan Chamber of Commerce sued to overturn the law's special provisions for corporation spending in elections.

The Supreme Court, in a ruling written by Justice Thurgood Marshall, said that law did not violate the chamber's First Amendment right of free speech or its equal protection rights under the Fourteenth Amendment. Other states have enacted similar laws.

McConnell v. Federal Election Commission

Sen. Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., and others sued to overturn the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act. But the Supreme Court upheld the regulation of corporate spending in federal elections, including Section 203.

Section 203 of the federal act prohibits corporations, including nonprofits and unions, from using general treasury funds to pay for radio, television, cable TV or satellite broadcast ads within 30 days of a primary or 60 days of a general election that refer to federal candidates.

Copyright © The Seattle Times Company

More Politics headlines...

E-mail E-mail article      Print Print      Share Share

Comments
No comments have been posted to this article.

advertising


Get home delivery today!

More Politics

Others states' fights bring focus to Daniels

NEW - 07:13 AM
South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley is writing memoir

Bill would make jail mug shots available

Immigration, license bill voted down in state Senate

Rival Texas bills require sonograms before abortions

Advertising

Video

Marketplace

 
Most read
Most commented
Most e-mailed
 
 

Most viewed imagesMore

Advertising