|
Advocacy Blog
Tuesday, April 15, 2008
SpeechNow.org v. FEC Heard in District Court
On Friday April 11, a federal judge heard arguments in the SpeechNow.org case, and reportedly hopes to have a decision soon. According to BNA Money and Politics ($$); "The judge hinted, however, that he was unlikely to go along with SpeechNow.org's request for a preliminary injunction protecting it from enforcement of the [Federal Election Commission] FEC's 'political committee' rules." The group is challenging FEC rules that limit political action committees to collect no more than $5,000 annually from each contributor. SpeechNow.org wants to collect unlimited contributions to help elect federal candidates who support free political speech. "The judge suggested at the outset that SpeechNow.org was mainly a 'hypothetical' organization, created to launch a 'test case' regarding campaign finance rules."
Judge James Robertson, "asked several times why SpeechNow.org thought it should be immune from rules governing political action committees--such as contribution limits and detailed reporting requirements. He questioned how this position could be squared with SpeechNow.org's acknowledgement that the group could be subject to some campaign finance rules, mainly involving disclosure of those contributors who finance 'independent expenditures' advocating the election or defeat of candidates."
Steven Simpson, of the nonprofit Institute for Justice representing SpeechNow.org, "argued that the SpeechNow.org case was simple and followed the logic of previous Supreme Court decisions, which have upheld the right of individuals to spend as much as they want to help or hurt candidates, so long as the spending is not coordinated with a candidate. SpeechNow.org argues that this right should be extended to groups of individuals, so long as a group's actions are independent of candidates and political parties." However, FEC representatives warned that a decision in SpeechNow's favor "would lead to a flood of unlimited contributions to groups seeking to influence federal elections."
Posted by Amanda Adams
|