15 Case Summaries for ap gov't & Politics Contents
Constitutional Provision, Law, and Supreme Court Precedents
Download 0.6 Mb. View original pdf
|
- Navigate this page:
- The Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (BRCA) of 2002 (also known as the McCain- Feingold Act)
| Constitutional Provision, Law, and Supreme Court Precedents - First Amendment to the US. Constitution “Congress shall make no law … abridging the freedom of speech …” - Buckley v. Valeo (1976) The Court decided that the individual contribution limits in the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 (FECA) were constitutional. The Court said political contributions were a form of speech and that contribution limits affected donors First Amendment rights. However, they also found that these rights can be limited if the laws specifically address a very important government interest, such as preventing corruption, without restricting free speech too much. The Court also found that the provision in the FECA banning corporations and labor unions from making independent expenditures in support of (or in opposition to) a particular candidate (as opposed to contributions directly to the candidate or to the candidate’s campaign) unconstitutionally abridged the First Amendment rights of corporations and unions to engage in political speech. - Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce (1990) A state law in Michigan said that for-profit and nonprofit corporations could not use their money to run ads that support or oppose candidates instate elections. The Supreme Court decided the Michigan law was constitutional, even though it did restrict corporations speech. First, the justices said that the government had a very important reason for restricting speech—reducing corruption or the appearance of corruption. Corporations, they reasoned, can accumulate a lot of money and they might use that money to unfairly influence elections. The justices also pointed out that the Michigan law allowed corporations to setup separate special funds with money from donors and spend that money on election ads. That allowed the corporations other avenues for their speech. - The Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (BRCA) of 2002 (also known as the McCain- Feingold Act) Among other things, this federal law banned any corporation (for-profit or nonprofit) or union from paying for electioneering communications It defined an electioneering communication as a broadcast, cable, or satellite communication that named a federal candidate within 60 days of a general election or 30 days of a primary. This included both express advocacy (ads that specifically appealed to voters to vote for or against a certain candidate) and issue advocacy (ads that expressed a view about apolitical issue and mentioned a candidate. In 2003, in a case called McConnell v. FEC, the Supreme Court said that the portion of the BCRA about electioneering communications was constitutional. Citizens United v. FEC (2010) © 2018 Street Law, Inc. 15 - Wisconsin Right to Life v. FEC (2007) The Supreme Court decided that the BCRA’s ban on issue advocacy was unconstitutional. The Court said that issue advocacy was political speech, and the government could not prevent organizations from discussing issues simply because the issues might be relevant in an upcoming election. The justices said that issue ads are not equivalent to contributions, and there is not a compelling reason that banning the issue ads would reduce corruption. They also said that issue ads can mention public officials, as long as they are not direct appeals to vote for or against a specific candidate. Download 0.6 Mb. Share with your friends:
|