Date: Tue, 9 May 2000 21:45:17 -0700
From: apfanning@psn.net ("Alan Fanning")
Subject: [lpaz-repost] Spending Limits Struck Down
To: lpaz-repost@egroups.com ("lpaz-repost")
Top World News
Wed, 10 May 2000, 12:40am EDT
U.S. Appeals Court Lifts Spending Limits for Political Parties
By Paul Hendrie
Washington, May 8 (Bloomberg) -- Political parties can spend
as much as they want aiding their congressional candidates, a U.S.
appeals court ruled in striking down a $20,000-per-campaign limit
that has been in force for more than 25 years.
The ruling today by the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in
Denver applies to six states. If it survives a likely Supreme
Court appeal, it would lift the last restriction on spending by
political parties on behalf of their candidates.
The appeals court said the spending limit violated the
Costitution and the U.S. Federal Election Commission failed to
prove that unlimited spending by the parties corrupts the
electoral process.
``We conclude that the Party Expenditure Provision (of the
Federal Election Campaign Act of 1974) constitutes a `significant
interference' with the First Amendment rights of political
parties,'' Judge Deanell R. Tacha wrote for the panel's 2-1
majority.
The FEC declined comment on the ruling or the likelihood of
an appeal, citing a policy of not discussing current litigaton.
The 10th Circuit court has jurisdiction in Kansas, Oklahoma,
Wyoming, Colorado, New Mexico and Utah.
A 1996 U.S. Supreme Court decision threw out all limits on
``independent expenditures'' by political parties for their
candidates, sparking a spending spree in targeted congressional
districts across the country. Independent expenditures cannot be
coordinated with the candidates they benefit.
Coordinated Expenditures
The appeals court went a step further by lifting the cap on
party expenditures that are coordinated with congressional
candidates. The ruling will allow party committees to pour as much
money as they choose into targeted congressional races.
The ruling stems from a 1986 lawsuit against the Colorado
Republican Federal Campaign Committee, which had run radio ads
criticizing Democratic Senate candidate Timothy Wirth. The FEC
sued the Republican committee, alleging the purchase of the radio
time was an expenditure on behalf of Wirth's opponent that
exceeded the $20,000 limit.
The Republican committee countered that the spending was
independent of the candidate and, therefore, didn't fall within
the $20,000 cap on ``coordinated expenditures.'' The committee
also filed a counterclaim alleging that the limits on coordinated
expenditures violated its First Amendment rights to free speech
and association.
In its 1996 decision, the Supreme Court endorsed the
Republican committee's stance on the independent expenditure
argument, but remanded the broader constitutional question of
whether the First Amendment forbids restrictions on ``coordinated
expenditures'' back to the trial court. The high court noted the
limits on coordinated expenditures had never been tested in the
courts.
Limits Upheld
While the Supreme Court held in its 1976 Buckley vs. Valeo
case that mandatory limits on campaign expenditures
unconstitutionally abridge the First Amendment right to free
speech, the court upheld narrowly drawn contribution caps to
prevent corruption or the appearance of corruption.
Federal campaign laws treat the parties' coordinated
expenditures as ``contributions.'' The appeals court said,
however, that simple cubbyholing of constitutional values under
the labels `contributions' and `expenditures''' in this case
``cheapens the currency.''
The court rejected the FEC's contentions that unlimited party
spending allows major donors to corrupt the political process and
gives party leaders leverage to pressure their candidates on
behalf of large ``soft money'' contributors.
``Soft money'' describes the unregulated, unlimited
contributions to political parties, often by corporations and
labor unions that are legally barred from giving directly to
federal campaigns. While the money can't be spent directly on
federal campaigns, it is commonly spent on ``issue'' advertising
that indirectly promotes the election and defeat of candidates.
Soft Money Concerns
``We appreciate the FEC's concern over soft money, but this
proceeding does not present the opportunity for soft money
reform,'' the appeals court wrote. ``In this case, we address only
the constitutionality of (the) limit on hard money coordinated
expenditures. The FEC has presented no evidence to suggest that
parties have illegally utilized soft money for hard money
spending. Absent such a showing, we will not allow the appearance
of soft money excess to justify a limit on hard money
expenditures.''
The court also rejected the argument that lifting the cap on
coordinated party spending could give ``unscrupulous'' party
leaders the power to advance their own agendas.
``The premise of this theory, namely that political parties
can corrupt the electoral system by influencing their candidates'
positions, gravely misunderstands the role of political parties in
our democracy,'' the court wrote. ``Even if, as the FEC contends,
party leaders subvert the greater will of the rank-and-file
membership, we trust the members to replace their leaders.''
In a dissent, 10th Circuit Chief Judge Stephanie K. Seymour
called the ruling ``fundamentally flawed.''
``The discussion and analysis are permeated with and skewed
by the majority's determination to substitute its judgment for
that of Congress on quintessentially political matters the Supreme
Court has cautioned courts to leave to the legislative process,''
she wrote.
``There is no support in the Constitution, the legislation or
Supreme Court authority for the majority's notion that political
parties are entitled to favored treatment when assessing a
contribution limit that impacts their associational rights,''
Seymour wrote.
Porsche Boxter. You and a friend. Nine dream days from
Napa Valley to Beverly Hills. Provided by CarsDirect.com.
Click to enter.
http://click.egroups.com/1/3993/0/_/651531/_/957933864/
Community email addresses:
Post message: lpaz-repost@onelist.com
Subscribe: lpaz-repost-subscribe@onelist.com
Unsubscribe: lpaz-repost-unsubscribe@onelist.com
List owner: lpaz-repos-owner@onelist.com
Web site: www.ArizonaLibertarian.org
Shortcut URL to this page:
http://www.onelist.com/community/lpaz-repost