Latest Politics  

Latest Posts  |  Archive  | 

More on WRTL: Reaction Roundup

by Ryan Sager
Mon, 25 Jun 2007 at 11:15 AM
updated Mon, 25 Jun 2007 at 11:18 AM

Print

Send

RSS

Share:

The decision is here (PDF).

Republican and Democratic candidates' reactions — and others — as they come in, below the fold:

Mitt Romney: Boston, MA — Today, Governor Mitt Romney issued the following statement on the United States Supreme Court decision overturning a portion of the McCain-Feingold campaign finance law: "Score one for free speech. Today the Supreme Court reaffirmed the First Amendment by rejecting a key feature of McCain-Feingold. The law trampled the basic right of the American people to participate in their democracy. It also purported to reduce the influence of money in politics, but we now know that influence is greater than ever. McCain-Feingold was a poorly-crafted bill. Today's decision restores, in part, to the American people a right critical to their freedom of political participation and expression."

"While I respect their decision in this matter, it is regrettable that a split Supreme Court has carved out a narrow exception by which some corporate and labor expenditures can be used to target a federal candidate in the days and weeks before an election.

"It is important to recognize, however, that the Court's decision does not affect the principal provision of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act, which bans federal officeholders from soliciting soft money contributions for their parties to spend on their campaigns.

"I am grateful to the Bush Administration and all those lawmakers, both past and present, who have joined us in our efforts to put an end to the corruption bred by soft money. Fortunately, that central reform still stands as the law."

Rudy Giuliani: "I support this Supreme Court decision, which is a welcome victory for free speech and personal liberty.

"The ruling protects freedom to participate in the electoral process and recognizes political free speech is the foundation of our First Amendment rights."

John Edwards: Chapel Hill, North Carolina – Senator John Edwards released the following statement following the issuance of the latest in a series of Supreme Court decisions this term that limit protections for working Americans, women and the environment.

"Like President Bush, Chief Justice Roberts sought high office claiming he would be a consensus-builder. But this term's rash of far-reaching 5-4 decisions proves that Roberts, like Bush, is exactly the opposite. With its two newest members, today's Supreme Court is moving the right-wing's agenda faster than we've seen in decades -- slamming the courthouse doors in the faces of ordinary people, favoring big businesses over civil rights, and undermining protections for women and the environment. Because the next president will likely nominate at least one Supreme Court justice, which could shape the balance of power on the Court for years to come, the stakes in the 2008 election could not be higher."

Others...

* James Bopp Jr., lawyer for plaintiff: "The Supreme Court has given meaning to its recognition, in McConnell, that there are 'genuine issue ads,' which incumbent politicians could not silence. Grassroots lobbying is important to citizens involvement in their own government and it has nothing to do with elections. The Court has now restored to the people the most effective means, broadcast ads, for efforts to influence incumbent politician when they pass laws to tax and regulate us.

"Incumbent politicians have no constitutional authority to quash criticism of their conduct in office. The American Revolution was fought, and the First Amendment enacted, precisely to protect the people's right to criticize the government. The Court today has rejected the audacious attempt by Senator McCain and his allies to overturn the First Amendment's protection and empower incumbent politicians with the power to ban public criticism--even ban ads that contain no such criticism.

"It will be important now for the Federal Election Commission, which has so long fought any protection for grassroots lobbying within the blackout period, to act promptly to adopt regulations which will give full effect to the Supreme Court's mandate."

* Brad Smith, former FEC commissioner (via email): "The opinion is no blank check. Someone with some cahones will still need to test its parameters. That said, it is written in a tone that suggests a) the exemption should be treated broadly; and b) the court has great skepticism of government regulation in the area.

"But I see no reason to fight that issue. The real response is: so what? Isn't that a good thing? Isn't it good for the citizens of Wisconsin to learn about Russ Feingold and Herb Kohl? Isn't it good when citizens groups can comment on the records of candidates? Let's hope it allows huge money to be poured into 2008. More speech is what the First Amendment is about. Who would give these naysayers the time of day if this said, "this will mean huge amounts of speech will be heard in 2008 by corporations, the NRA, etc."?

* Senator Feingold: Washington DC – Today the United States Supreme Court reached its decision in Wisconsin Right to Life v. FEC, a case challenging the application of the electioneering communications provisions of the McCain-Feingold bill to particular advertisements that ran in Wisconsin in July and August 2004. The McCain-Feingold bill prohibited corporations and unions from spending their treasury money on ads that mention federal candidates 30 days before a primary or 60 days before a general election. Following the decision, Senator Feingold released this statement:

"While I am disappointed in today's ruling in the Wisconsin Right to Life case, it does not affect the Court's decision four years ago in McConnell v. FEC that banning unlimited "soft money" contributions to the political parties is fully constitutional. The new decision also does not overturn the McConnell ruling that the issue ad provision of the McCain-Feingold law is constitutional. Unfortunately, the test that the Court sets out for challenges to the law by those who wish to run specific ads -- whether the ads in question are the "functional equivalent of express advocacy" and are "susceptible of no reasonable interpretation other than as an appeal to vote for or against a specific candidate" -- seems susceptible to easy manipulation by groups intent on spending corporate and union money to influence elections.

"It remains to be seen whether this new test will prove as hollow as the old "magic words" test, which the McConnell court called "functionally meaningless." The FEC should not allow today's decision to open the door for a return to the pre-McCain-Feingold days of phony issue ads and unlimited corporate and union spending on campaigns. If that is the result, the Court will have done the country a great disservice."

* Rick Hasen, professor of law, Loyola Law School: "Today's opinion is a major victory for those who oppose campaign finance regulation, and will likely lead to a new proliferation of corporate and union funded campaign ads in the 2008 election season. It has revealed the Roberts Court, as I have feared, as moving firmly into the deregulationist camp, with the Chief Justice and Justice Alito dressing up the opinion as a minimalist, incremental decision."

* Bob Bauer, election lawyer (Democrat): "The majority seems to be saying: 'Enough is enough'."

* Jonah Goldberg, National Review: "If only Ponnuru was on the bench."

* Fred Wertheimer, president of Democracy 21: The Supreme Court decision today in FEC v. Wisconsin Right to Life (WRTL) represents a significant step backwards for the American people in the battle to protect against the corruption of our democracy.

"Despite the decision, however, it is important to keep in mind that the court ruling in no way affects the ban on soft money in the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 (BCRA), which is the core provision of this statute."

* Pat Toomey, president of the Club for Growth: "The Court's ruling has the potential to dramatically open up public debate in this country ... We are particularly pleased by the Court's insistence on giving ‘the benefit of any doubt to protecting rather than stifling speech.'

"At the same time, we are disappointed that Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Alito balked at overruling McCain-Feingold's ban on ads close to an election, as advocated by Justices Scalia, Thomas, and Kennedy. The Court's 93-page decision today has the potential to open up a Pandora's Box of future litigation as groups struggle to determine which kind of speech falls under the Court's protected category and which kind of speech remains prohibited by McCain-Feingold. We hope the Supreme Court will take the opportunity in future cases to close the Pandora's Box once and for all."

Related Topics: GOP Primary

Latest Politics Homepage