CLE123, Inc.
Continuing Legal Education made as EASY as 1 2 3!
Call us at (866) 925-3123
Customer Support Available 8am-8pm EST
Courses
- Courses
- Supreme Court Argument - Federal Election Commission v. Wisconsin Right to Life (Political Free Speech)
Supreme Court Argument - Federal Election Commission v. Wisconsin Right to Life (Political Free Speech)
- Sku:
- OYZ003
- Price:
- US$50.00
- Total Time:
- 81
- Credits:
- Select State to Find Out
Course Description
Another in the series of CLE courses brought to you by CLE123, Inc. and Oyez.org. This one deals with constitutionality of the BiPartisan Campaign Reform Act's ban on certain political advertising during the sixty day window prior to an election.
Facts of the Case
Wisconsin Right to Life (WRTL), a nonprofit political advocacy corporation, ran three advertisements encouraging viewers to contact two U.S. Senators and tell them to oppose filibusters of judicial nominees. WRTL intended to keep running the ads through the 2004 election, but the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 (BCRA) prohibits corporate funds from being used for certain political advertisements in the 60-day period prior to an election. WRTL sued the Federal Election Commission (FEC), claiming that the BCRA was unconstitutional as applied to the advertisements. In 2006, the Supreme Court let the "as applied" challenge proceed (see Wisconsin Right to Life v. Federal Election Commission, 04-1581). In McConnell v. Federal Election Commission, the Court had upheld Congress's power to regulate "express advocacy" ads that support or oppose political candidates, but WRTL claimed that its ads were "issue ads" rather than express advocacy. WRTL also argued that the government lacked a compelling interest sufficient to override the corporation's First Amendment free speech interest. The FEC countered that WRTL's ads were "sham issue ads," which refrain from explicitly endorsing or opposing a candidate but are intended to affect an election.
A three-judge District Court agreed with WRTL's arguments and ruled the BCRA unconstitutional as applied to the ads. The court refused the FEC's request that it inquire into the intent and likely effect of the ads, because those determinations would be impractical and would have a chilling effect on protected speech. Analyzing only the explicit content of the ads, the court found them to be legitimate issue ads and not express advocacy or sham issue ads. The court also held that the government's justification for banning express advocacy ads by corporations - the need to reduce political corruption and public cynicism - did not apply to ads that do not endorse or oppose a candidate. Therefore, the court ruled that the government lacked a compelling interest to justify the burden on WRTL's First Amendment rights.
Question
Is the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act's ban on the use of corporate treasury funds for political advertisements in the 60 days before an election unconstitutional as applied to advertisements that do not explicitly endorse or oppose a candidate?
About the Lecturer
Course Audio Files
Please Login To Listen
Registration is quick and free and gives you access to listen to hundreds of audio files
Course Notes
Please Login To View
Registration is quick and free and gives you access to all of the class notes