The Supreme Court has upheld major provisions of the McCain-Feingold-Shays-Meehan Campaign Finance legislation in a landmark decision,
A sharply divided Supreme Court upheld key features of the nation’s new law intended to lessen the influence of money in politics, ruling Wednesday that the government may ban unlimited donations to political parties.
Those donations, called “soft money” and totaling hundreds of millions of dollars,had become a mainstay of modern political campaigns, used to rally voters to the polls and to pay for sharply worded television ads.
Congress may regulate campaign money to prevent the real or perceived corruption of political candidates, the court ruled in a 5-4 decision. That goal and most of the rules Congress drafted to meet it outweigh limitations on the free speech of candidates and others in politics, the majority said.
At the same time, the court said the 2002 law will not stop the flow of campaign cash.
“We are under no illusion that (the law) will be the last congressional statement on the matter. Money, like water, will always find an outlet. What problems will arise, and how Congress will respond, are concerns for another day,” Justices John Paul Stevens and Sandra Day O’Connor wrote for the majority.
The court also voted 5-4 to uphold restrictions on political ads in the weeks before an election. The television and radio ads often feature harsh attacks by one politician against another or by groups running commercials against candidates.
Rep. Marty Meehan, D-Mass., a co-author of the law, called the decision a “major victory for American democracy.” He acknowledged the law won’t stop all forms of abuse in the system, but it ends the era when “special interest groups could control the national political parties and underwrite federal campaigns by writing unlimited checks.”
I have lost some of my enthusiasm for the law as the predictions of the naysayers have come true, but this ruling leaves the door open for Congress to go further in attempting to limit the influence of money on the political process.
UPDATE: Of course, James and Steven have slightly different perspectives.