|
''Federal Election Commission v. Wisconsin Right to Life, Inc.'', 551 U.S. 449 (2007), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that issue ads may not be banned from the months preceding a primary or general election. == Background == In 2002, the Congress passed the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act ("McCain-Feingold" or "BCRA"), amending the Federal Election Campaign Act to further regulate money in public election campaigns. One primary purpose of the legislation was to regulate what were colloquially known as "issue ads." "Issue ads" typically discussed a candidate name with regards to a particular issue, but because they did not expressly advocate the election or defeat of a candidate, they fell outside the prohibitions and limitations of the Federal Election Campaign Act. Section 203 of BCRA prohibited corporations and unions from directly or indirectly funding "electioneering communications," defined as broadcast ads costing in excess of an aggregated $10,000 that mentioned a candidate for federal political office within 30 days of a primary election or 60 days of a general election. In ''McConnell v. Federal Election Commission,'' the Supreme Court upheld section 203 and other sections of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act against a facial challenge that the law was unconstitutional. Wisconsin Right to Life Inc. ("WRTL"), a nonprofit advocacy group, sought to run ads asking voters to contact their Senators and urge them to oppose filibusters of judicial nominees. (The text of one of WRTL's proposed ads is listed at the conclusion of this article). WRTL sought to run its ads within the 30 and 60 day blackout provisions of BCRA. However, because WRTL was itself incorporated and also because it accepted corporate contributions, it was prohibited from doing so. WRTL argued that the proposed ads addressed a current issue pending in Congress and did not advocate the election or defeat of a candidate. As such, the government had no compelling interest in prohibiting them from airing even during the election session. In the first round of litigation, the federal district court ruled that the language of ''McConnell v. FEC'' precluded not only a facial challenge, but also an "as applied" challenge to this portion of BCRA and so dismissed the case. However, in ''Wisconsin Right to Life v. Federal Election Commission''〔''Wisconsin Right to Life v. Federal Election Commission'', 546 U.S. 410 (2006)〕 ("WRTL I"), the Supreme Court reversed and remanded the case to the lower courts to determine whether or not WRTL should be granted an "as applied" exception to the law. On remand, the FEC argued that ads run so close to an election and naming a candidate or candidates should be presumed to have the intent of influencing the election, and thus BCRA's limitation on financing such ads with corporate funds was constitutionally valid. It argued that WRTL's specific ads were intended to and would influence the 2004 Senate election in Wisconsin. The district court rejected the FEC's argument and refused to delve into the matter of the intent and underlying meaning of the ads. The Court stated that such an investigation would be impractical and would "have a chilling effect on protected speech." The District court thus limited its review to that content of the ad. In doing so, the court found that they were not "sham" issue ads and did not expressly advocate for or against a candidate. It, therefore, found that the government lacked a compelling interest to abridge WRTL's rights of free speech. The FEC appealed and the case returned to the Supreme Court. 抄文引用元・出典: フリー百科事典『 ウィキペディア（Wikipedia）』 ■ウィキペディアで「FEC v. Wisconsin Right to Life, Inc.」の詳細全文を読む スポンサード リンク
|