Since the new national campaign finance law took effect Nov. 6, a growing number of activist organizations, politicians, lobbyist groups and states are taking sides in a court challenge to the law that could end up in the Supreme Court within months.
The Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act aims to change the current trend of campaign finance by banning soft money contributions to national political parties, increasing hard money contribution limits and restricting corporations and labor unions from running ads explicitly in favor of one candidate.
More than 80 plaintiffs are challenging the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act in federal court, arguing that the ban of "soft money" contributions represents an encroachment on First Amendment rights.
Sens. John McCain, R-Ariz., and Russ Feingold, D-Wis., have spearheaded the bipartisan legislation since introducing a similar bill earlier this year.
Plaintiffs in the case, led by Sen. Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., include the Republican National Committee, the California Democratic Party, the National Rifle Association and the American Civil Liberties Union.
But in the meantime, both Republican and Democratic Party committees are forming shadow organizations designed to exploit loopholes in the law and ensure the uninterrupted flow of "soft" contributions.
In a letter sent two weeks ago to the Republican and Democratic National Committees, McCain and Feingold urged the parties to avoid undermining the law by establishing these shadow organizations.
"Any such attempt to undermine the new law will perpetuate the appearance of corruption that plagues our political parties and federal elected officials," the two senators wrote. "We will continue to challenge all efforts to undermine the new law."
In a court motion filed last Thursday, Iowa Attorney General Thomas J. Miller and Vermont Attorney General William H. Sorrell echoed these concerns and expressed their states' support of the new law.
"The act is both constitutional and essential to the health of our national democracy," Miller and Sorrell wrote. "The accumulated experience of members of Congress, reinforced by empirical evidence, is that the dominance of money in politics seriously threatens the public's faith in the legitimacy of government and in the elections that choose whom shall govern."
Additional states supporting the court motion include Alaska, Colorado, Connecticut, Hawaii, Kansas, Kentucky, Maine, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Rhode Island and Washington. Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands backed it as well.
Read More
Administrators and faculty paint conflicting pictures of May 4 encampment clearing
By Cecilia Mould | 21 hours agoThe details contested between the town halls included the clarity of the University’s tent policy and the presence of suspicious individuals at the encampment.
Faculty Senate calls for an external review of May 4 clearing of encampment
By Priya Kommu | 22 hours agoSenators had questions about the lack of direct communication between University administrators and the students and faculty present at the encampment.
University's last minute update to EHS tent regulations document creates confusion, frustration
By Arshiya Pant | 23 hours agoRyan said that he did not believe there was confusion among protesters about the permissibility of tents due to warnings from University officials on several occasions to remove tents.
