Supreme Court Hears Campaign Finance Case

The Supreme Court was told Monday that Congress overstepped its bounds in passing legislation imposing complicated new rules intended to clean up election campaign finances.

The law “intrudes deeply into the political life of the nation” and “in a word, goes too far,” said Kenneth Starr, the former independent counsel who investigated President Clinton, who now is serving as an attorney for challengers to the law.

Solicitor General Theodore Olson said the law was a response to a perception of corrupt politics – “the breakfasts, the lunches, the receptions, the dinners … the relentless pursuit of big contributions.”

Justices returned early from their summer break for the first time in nearly three decades to hear arguments in the complex case, the results of which will guide next year’s campaigns and those for years to come.

In the first half of arguments Monday, justices animatedly queried attorneys who contend the law is an unconstitutional infringement on free speech rights and government lawyers defending the law.

Groups as varied as the American Civil Liberties Union and the National Rifle Association are challenging the 2002 law, which bans huge, unlimited donations to political parties known as “soft money,” and tightens controls on political advertising in the weeks before an election.

Starr, the first of eight attorneys who would argue before the justices, said the law hamstrings local political parties, which work with national parties, and hurts grass-roots political efforts.

Justice Antonin Scalia seemed skeptical of the law, which he said was passed by incumbent lawmakers worried about protecting themselves. “There will be abuses under this law,” he predicted.

Olson said Congress may not have fixed every potential abuse, but spent six years coming up with the plan.

The case attracted unusual attention. Television cameras lined the approach to the court Monday morning and a line of seat-seekers stretched down the plaza of the court building toward the street. Sens. John McCain, R-Ariz., and Russell Feingold, D-Wis., principal authors of the law under challenge, took seats side-by-side in the court.

The court must decide if Congress’ rewrite of campaign laws squares with First Amendment free-speech protections. A ruling could come before year’s end. While the court reviews more than 1,000 pages of briefs in the case, campaigns go on under the contested rules.

“The 2004 campaign is not waiting for the starting gun. People are already halfway down the track,” said John Podesta, a Democratic strategist who was chief of staff to President Clinton.

If the court strikes down the entire law, which is unlikely, or some parts, Congress can start working on another version to control how money is raised and spent in future elections.

The Supreme Court has put the case on a fast track, scheduling an off-term session before its October term for the first time since 1974, when justices ordered then-President Nixon to surrender Watergate-scandal tape recordings.

The court was to hear four hours of arguments, taking the rare step of allowing release of audio tapes at the end of the session.

The most closely watched court members were Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist and Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, two conservatives who are considered possible swing votes.

Members of the court’s more liberal wing – Justices John Paul Stevens, David H. Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer – were thought to have the least objections to the new law.

Justices most likely to oppose it as unconstitutional infringement of free speech were Scalia, Anthony M. Kennedy and Clarence Thomas.

The case is McConnell v. FEC, 02-1674.

—

On the Net:

Federal Election Commission: http://www.fec.gov

Campaign Finance Institute guide to the BCRA: http://www.cfinst.org/eguide/