Summary of Supreme Court Decision in FEC v. Wisconsin Right to Life

It is all but certain that corporations and unions will pour hundreds of millions of dollars in treasury funds into electioneering communications in the next election.

July 5, 2007

View PDF Version


Brennan Center for Justice at NYU School of Law
Summary of Supreme Court Decision

FEC v. Wisconsin Right to Life, Inc. (2007)

Background

Before
passage of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 ("BCRA"), an ad
was subject to campaign finance regulation only if it was "express
advocacy" - an ad for or against a candidate that used "magic words,"
such as "vote for" or "vote against." So-called "sham issue ads"
(campaign ads that simply avoided "magic words") were funded the same
way as genuine issue ads (ads taking a position on a public issue).
There were no limits on who could buy the ads, no limits on how they
were financed, and no disclosure was required. Hundreds of millions of
dollars of corporate and union treasury funds, which could not legally
be used to influence elections, poured into federal campaign
advertising through the "sham issue ad" loophole. BCRA closed this
loophole by banning the use of corporate and union treasury funds for
"electioneering communications"- broadcast ads aired during the
pre-election period, referring to a candidate and targeting the
candidate's constituents. In December 2003, the U.S. Supreme Court
upheld the constitutionality of this provision in McConnell v. FEC.

During
Senator Russ Feingold's 2004 campaign, Wisconsin Right to Life ("WRTL")
ran ads urging viewers to tell him to oppose the filibuster of
President Bush's judicial nominees. The ads, which were part of a long
campaign by WRTL to oust Senator Feingold, ran while the Senate was in
recess and could not vote on judicial nominees, but ceased once Senator
Feingold won re-election, even though the filibuster again became an
issue. Although WRTL raised substantial corporate treasury funds for
its operations, it argued that BCRA could not constitutionally be
applied to its ads, because they were issue advocacy. On June 25, 2007,
the U.S. Supreme Court agreed (5-4).

The Decision

  • BCRA could not be applied to WRTL's ads, because they were
    not "the functional equivalent of express advocacy" for or against a
    candidate.

  • An ad is "the functional equivalent of
    express advocacy" only if it is "susceptible of no reasonable
    interpretation other than as an appeal to vote for or against a
    specific candidate."

  • WRTL's ads were not the "functional equivalent of express advocacy" for two reasons:

    "First,
    their content is consistent with that of a genuine issue ad: The ads
    focus on a legislative issue, take a position on the issue, exhort the
    public to adopt that position, and urge the public to contact public
    officials with respect to the matter."

    "Second, their content
    lacks indicia of express advocacy: The ads do not mention an election,
    candidacy, political party, or challenger; and they do not take a
    position on a candidate's character, qualifications, or fitness for
    office."

  • In applying the test, courts are generally
    barred from considering contextual evidence and may allow only "minimal
    if any discovery."

  • The intent of the advertiser and the
    effect of an ad are irrelevant to whether it is "the functional
    equivalent of express advocacy." McConnell should not have considered
    the purpose of electioneering communications in holding that they could
    be treated as express advocacy.

Legal Implications

  • BCRA is still good law. The Court did not overrule
    McConnell, and it did not invalidate BCRA. Corporations and unions may
    not use treasury funds for electioneering communications, unless a
    court rules that BCRA does not apply to ads they are running.

  • State laws regulating electioneering communications are still valid.

  • The
    decision does not affect the law's requirement for disclosure of
    electioneering communications. WRTL did not challenge the obligation to
    disclose the amount it spent on its ads, and the Court did not address
    that issue.

  • The new test is not the same as the "magic
    words" test. The test is similar to the "reasonable person" standard
    that has been in effect in the Ninth Circuit since 1987. Even after
    passage of BCRA, that standard applied to ads that did not qualify as
    "electioneering communications" because they were run before the
    statutory pre-election period.

Practical Implications

  • The opinion described above was written by Chief Justice
    Roberts and joined only by Justice Alito, although Justices Kennedy,
    Scalia, and Thomas concurred in the result. Seven justices (the three
    who endorsed the outcome of the opinion, but not its reasoning, and
    four who dissented completely) agreed that the Chief Justice
    effectively overturned a key portion of McConnell, even though he
    denied doing so and technically did not do so.

  • The Court
    has in effect invited a new facial challenge to BCRA's restrictions on
    the use of corporate and treasury funds for electioneering
    communications. In other words, it is likely that someone will bring a
    new lawsuit asking the Court explicitly to overturn McConnell and to
    extend the reasoning of WRTL to all ads that qualify as issue advocacy
    under WRTL's new test. There appear to be five justices who would be
    prepared to do so.

  • Practically, it is all but certain
    that corporations and unions will pour hundreds of millions of dollars
    in treasury funds into electioneering communications. We can expect a
    flood of ads aired immediately before federal elections that take care
    to take a position on an issue and exhort the public to contact elected
    officials. The shadings between attacks on candidates' views on the
    issues and attacks on their character may be difficult to discern. If
    the FEC tries to enforce BCRA, the corporations and unions will claim
    that their ads are issue advocacy and assert as-applied challenges to
    BCRA in their defense.