(09.19.09): "Federal Appeals Court Voids Campaign Finance Rules" (by D.Q. Wilbur & D. Eggen, WaPo)

[Laura Cereta]

A federal appeals court overturned hard-fought campaign finance reform regulations in a ruling on Friday that will make it easier for independent political groups to raise and spend money to influence elections.

The three-judge panel struck down regulations intended to blunt the power of such organizations, including the controversial Swift Boat Veterans for Truth and MoveOn.org, which drew heavy criticism for spending tens of millions of dollars on aggressive advertisements during the 2004 presidential campaign.

The ruling, if it stands, could provide a boost to Republicans and their allies as they try to win back Congress in 2010 and the White House in 2012. Outside conservative groups could become particularly important in countering the fundraising juggernaut of President Obama, who shattered past records by raising more than $750 million during his 2008 campaign.

Experts suggested that the court's decision could provide a boon to groups tapping into the fervor of anti-Obama activity and "tea party" events. It will certainly allow groups across the political spectrum to raise and spend money without pause, potentially leading to a more acerbic campaign environment.

The groups "are now free to accept unlimited contributions, to spend unlimited funds independently supporting or opposing federal candidates," said Richard L. Hasen, a professor at Loyola Law School in Los Angeles and an election law expert. "One of the things we know about outside groups, as opposed to political parties, is that they run more negative ads. . . . This could lead to a more negative campaign season."

The decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit came in a lawsuit brought by Emily's List, a nonprofit political organization that backs female Democratic candidates who support abortion rights.

Read more @ icon:
http://i649.photobucket.com/albums/uu212/2059911/smileys/media%20names/wapologo.gif (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/09/18/AR2009091801698.html?hpid=moreheadlines)

[VotingHillary]

and we thought 2008 was an ugly campaign. God help us in 2010 and beyond. The best candidate money can buy.

[Laura Cereta]

and we thought 2008 was an ugly campaign. God help us in 2010 and beyond. The best candidate money can buy.

I agree with the ruling. If Obama is allowed to bypass public financing and buy an election, then there should be no restrictions on outside groups either. It's got to be all one way or the other to be fair.

[foxyladi]

and we thought 2008 was an ugly campaign. God help us in 2010 and beyond. The best candidate money can buy.

right look what it,s got us so far.[-X[-X[-X

[Kbentleyis]

YES!! It's time to get even on the same playing level. Fraud is fraud, until it isn't! lol

[CGP]

READ @ WASHINGTON POST (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/09/18/AR2009091801698.html?hpid=moreheadlines)


A federal appeals court overturned hard-fought campaign finance reform regulations in a ruling on Friday that will make it easier for independent political groups to raise and spend money to influence elections.

The three-judge panel struck down regulations intended to blunt the power of such organizations, including the controversial Swift Boat Veterans for Truth and MoveOn.org, which drew heavy criticism for spending tens of millions of dollars on aggressive advertisements during the 2004 presidential campaign.

The ruling, if it stands, could provide a boost to Republicans and their allies as they try to win back Congress in 2010 and the White House in 2012. Outside conservative groups could become particularly important in countering the fundraising juggernaut of President Obama, who shattered past records by raising more than $750 million during his 2008 campaign.

Experts suggested that the court's decision could provide a boon to groups tapping into the fervor of anti-Obama activity and "tea party" events. It will certainly allow groups across the political spectrum to raise and spend money without pause, potentially leading to a more acerbic campaign environment.

The groups "are now free to accept unlimited contributions, to spend unlimited funds independently supporting or opposing federal candidates," said Richard L. Hasen, a professor at Loyola Law School in Los Angeles and an election law expert. "One of the things we know about outside groups, as opposed to political parties, is that they run more negative ads. . . . This could lead to a more negative campaign season."

The decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit came in a lawsuit brought by Emily's List, a nonprofit political organization that backs female Democratic candidates who support abortion rights.

The group challenged several Federal Election Commission regulations, arguing that the rules violated its First Amendment rights by limiting its ability to spend and raise money to influence elections. Circuit judges Brett M. Kavanaugh and Karen LeCraft Henderson agreed that the regulations violate free speech rights. A third judge, Janice Rogers Brown, said the regulations were invalid for other reasons.



Continues at link...

[CGP]

Court Backs Outside Groups’ Political Spending (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/19/us/politics/19donate.html?em)

(NYT, 9/18/09)


The federal appeals court for the District of Columbia ruled Friday that the government cannot restrict independent political spending by nonprofit groups or political committees, accelerating the judicial rollback of regulations aimed at curtailing the power of money in politics.

The ruling, in Emily’s List v. Federal Election Commission, broadens the field of activity open to groups known as 527s (after that section of the tax code) and other independent outfits like MoveOn.org on the left or Swift Boat Veterans for Truth on the right. Such organizations have stirred controversy in recent elections by funneling unlimited donations from a small number of wealthy donors into voter turnout efforts and campaign commercials.

Following the direction of recent Supreme Court decisions, the appeals court held that independent groups have a First Amendment right to raise and spend freely to influence elections so long as they do not coordinate their activities with a candidate or a party.

The Supreme Court has ruled that the federal government’s only legitimate interest in restricting political donations is combating the appearance or reality of corruption that could arise from allowing unlimited contributions directly to a candidate or political party.

The court has held that, on the other hand, a desire to level the playing field or limit the power of moneyed interests is not a permissible reason for the government to limit the amount a rich person might spend on independent efforts to elect or defeat a candidate. In this case, the appeals court held that nonprofit groups are essentially like rich individuals, so the government cannot restrict their independent spending either.

“Donations to nonprofit groups cannot corrupt candidates and officeholders,” Judge Brett M. Kavanaugh wrote for a three-judge panel. “And to the extent a nonprofit then spends its donations on activities such as advertisements, get-out-the-vote efforts and voter registration drives, those expenditures are not considered corrupting, even though they may generate gratitude from and influence with officeholders and candidates.”

[Laura Cereta]

merged. :)

[CGP]

merged. :)

:thumbsup:

When I first saw the headline to this story I thought it was going to be about the "Hillary the Movie" case but it turned out to be something different!

[foxyladi]

merged. :)

thanks:thumbsup::thumbsup:

[mavfin]

I agree with the ruling. If Obama is allowed to bypass public financing and buy an election, then there should be no restrictions on outside groups either. It's got to be all one way or the other to be fair.

Agreed. He was allowed to flout rules and buy the election, so it's time to level the playing field.