McConnell v. Federal Election Commission
**Overview of McConnell v. Federal Election Commission**
McConnell v. Federal Election Commission is a significant Supreme Court case concerning campaign finance laws in the United States. The case arose from the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002, which aimed to regulate contributions to political parties and restrict advertisements by special-interest groups close to election dates. The Supreme Court's decision, delivered by a narrow 5-4 margin, upheld key provisions of this law, particularly regarding the limitations on "soft money" donations and the timing of political advertisements. Proponents of the ruling argued that these regulations were essential to prevent corruption and maintain the integrity of elections, suggesting that the restrictions represented only minimal limitations on free speech. Conversely, dissenting justices contended that the decision undermined First Amendment rights by failing to apply strict scrutiny to campaign finance regulations. The case remains a pivotal reference point in discussions about the balance between campaign finance reform and free speech in the political arena.
McConnell v. Federal Election Commission
Date: December 10, 2003
Citation: 540 U.S. 93
Issue(s): Regulation of political contributions; free speech
Significance: In what was a review of the Campaign Finance Reform Act of 2002, the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the act’s limits on contributions to political parties.
In 1974, Congress amended federal election campaign laws by limiting the amount that citizens could contribute to political candidates. In Buckley v. Valeo (1976), the Supreme Court upheld the amendment as only a minimal restriction on speech, but it also held on free speech grounds that government could not put a limit on expenditures in campaigns. The federal law did not put any limits on “soft money,” which referred to donations to political parties for activities such as educating voters.
In 2002, Congress enacted the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (BCRA; also called the McCain-Feingold Act), which among its provisions, restricted the amount that could be contributed to national political parties, and it also prohibited advertisements by special-interest groups sixty days before an election. That same year, the District of Columbia Court of Appeals ruled that the BCRA’s limit on donations to political parties violated constitutional rights of free speech.
In a complicated decision of three hudnred pages, however, the Supreme Court voted five to four to uphold the two main provisions of the federal law: the control of soft money and the time regulation on issue adds. On the soft-money issue, Justices Sandra Day O’Connor and John Paul Stevens wrote that the restriction on free expression was minimal and that the limits furthered the government’s legitimate interest in opposing both corruption and the appearance of corruption that resulted from large contributions.
The dissenters argued that the majority had erred in not applying a “strict scrutiny” standard to the law. Justice Antonin Scalia wrote that the majority’s decision was based on the fallacy that money is not speech. Justice Clarence Thomas characterized the decision as the most significant abridgment of free speech since the Civil War.