|
Advocacy Blog
Friday, January 25, 2008
SpeechNow.org May challenge a Campaign Finance Law Provision
The Federal Election Commission (FEC) released a draft advisory opinion detailing that the newly formed group, SpeechNow.org, cannot accept unlimited contributions from donors if it wants to advocate for or against candidates for federal office. In November, SpeechNow.org submitted an opinion request to collect unlimited contributions from individuals to conduct "express advocacy." The group wanted to support candidates in 2008 "who favor returning America to the state of political freedom and advocate the defeat of candidates who favor speech restrictions in the name of campaign finance reform." In other words, the group wants to support candidates based on their support for free political speech. In response, FEC lawyers have said the group could do that only if it registered as a political committee, which would limit its contributions to $5,000 from individuals.
SpeechNow is making the case that if its speech is independent of any candidate or party, funded only by individuals, the "corruption" argument can not hold up. In addition, they argue that any restrictions on the ability of individuals to associate, by abiding by the FEC regulations, would violate Constitutional free speech rights.
The Center for Competitive Politics asserts that if the opinion were adopted, the group would be silenced. "The opinion would for the first time explicitly extend the full array of federal campaign finance regulations to groups of individual citizens acting independently of candidates and parties without corporate or union support."
Democratic Commissioner Ellen Weintraub voted in favor of the draft ruling written by FEC staff attorneys, but Republican Commissioner David Mason voted against the draft. Commissioner Mason said in a written dissenting opinion; "The distinction between candidate coordinated speech and independent speech is of constitutional significance. . . . Limiting the contribution limits given to an organization like SpeechNow would impose an intolerable, and constitutionally unjustifiable, burden on the independent spending of this organization." However, without a quorum, the commissioners can neither officially adopt the opinion, nor approve SpeechNow.org's request. The group is now likely to challenge the provision in federal court. However, considering the two sitting commissioners disagreed on SpeechNow.org's request, it is unclear how the FEC would defend the draft opinion in court.
Posted by Amanda Adams
|