Congressman
Striking a blow for the 1st Amendment.
June 25, 2007
My Tentacle column this Wednesday will be on the “Federal Election Commission v. Wisconsin Right to Life” and “McCain v. Wisconsin Right to Life” Supreme Court Decision:
Many are singing high praise of the
The ruling has been applauded by the unusual alliance of powerful unions, big business, and the
The court decided in “Federal Election Commission v. Wisconsin Right to Life” and “McCain v.
Initial analysis indicates that the decision will have an impact on the 2008 elections…
Meanwhile Congressman Bartlett says:
Congressman Roscoe Bartlett Applauds Today’s Supreme Court Opinion to Help Restore First Amendment Political Speech Rights
Washington, D.C. – The Supreme Court today substantially weakened the McCain-Feingold campaign finance act's restrictions on the type of advertisement non-profit grassroots organizations, corporations and special interest groups may run in the days before an election. Congressman Bartlett said, “It is a step in the right direction for First Amendment political speech rights. My bill, the First Amendment Restoration Act (H.R. 71), goes much further to restore Americans’ First Amendment rights by repealing the “electioneering communication” provision at issue in today’s Supreme Court opinion.
Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr. wrote the 5-4 opinion for the court, stating that Wisconsin Right-to-Life should have been allowed to broadcast ads before the 2004 race for the United States Senate in that state. The portion of the law in question in the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 (BCRA) states that labor unions and corporations (including non-profits) cannot use money from their general treasuries to broadcast ads that run 30 days before a primary or 60 days before a general election, are aimed at a relevant electorate and mention a federal candidate by name.
The difference between so-called "issue ads," which are allowed, and those that "express advocacy," which are banned, is often hard to define, Chief Justice Roberts stated. In today's decision, the Supreme Court created a constitutional safe harbor for genuine issue ads. It stated that, only if the ad “is susceptible of no reasonable interpretation other than as an appeal to vote for or against a specific candidate” can the ad be prohibited during the blackout period. “Chief Justice Roberts’ reasoning is significant,” Congressman Bartlett said. Chief Justice Roberts reasoned, “In drawing that line, the First Amendment requires us to err on the side of protecting political speech rather than suppressing it.”
Congressman Bartlett said, “The reason that I introduced H.R. 71 (H.R. 689 in the 109th Congress, first introduced as H.R. 3801 in the 108th Congress) is because I am firmly committed to protecting our Constitution. As stated in the First Amendment to the Constitution, ‘Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech.’ No constitutional right is absolute; however, it is clearly a violation of the First Amendment to restrict organized group communications and limit what people can say about a candidate and when they may choose to speak out.”
“I, along with many others including the President, believe that the Supreme Court made a mistake in the December 2003 decision upholding the constitutionality of the 30-60 day provision,” said Congressman Bartlett. “The 30-60 day BCRA provision eviscerates the central purpose of the First Amendment’s guarantee of free speech – the protection of political speech. My bill would simply repeal this provision. Today’s Supreme Court decision, however, does help to weaken the unconstitutional BCRA provision.”
###
For more information Contact: Lisa Wright or Monica DeLong at (202) 225-2721
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.