Federal Election Commission v. Wisconsin Right To Life

551 U.S. 449 (2007)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

BCRA significantly cut back on corporations' ability to engage in political speech. Section 203 makes it a crime to use corporation general treasury funds to pay for any 'electioneering communication.' That term is defined as any broadcast, cable, or satellite communication that refers to a candidate for federal office and that is aired within 30 days of a federal primary election or 60 days of a federal general election in the jurisdiction in which that candidate is running for office. P is a tax-exempt nonprofit, nonstock, ideological advocacy corporation. P broadcast a radio advertisements entitled 'Wedding,' 'Waiting,' and 'Loan' throughout August 2004 and financing the ads with funds from its general treasury. It recognized that as of August 15, 30 days prior to the Wisconsin primary, the ads would be illegal 'electioneering communications' under BCRA §203. P filed suit on First Amendment grounds seeking declaratory and injunctive relief. The District Court denied a preliminary injunction because the McConnell case left no room for the kind of 'as applied' challenge P propounds. P did not run its ads during the blackout period. The District Court subsequently dismissed P's complaint. The Supreme Court vacated the District Court's judgment, holding that McConnell 'did not purport to resolve future as-applied challenges' to BCRA §203, and remanded for the District Court to consider the merits. The three-judge District Court granted summary judgment for P, holding BCRA §203 unconstitutional as applied to the three advertisements. Under McConnell, BCRA could constitutionally proscribe 'express advocacy'--defined as ads that expressly advocate the election or defeat of a candidate for federal office--and the 'functional equivalent' of such advocacy. Limiting its inquiry to 'language within the four corners' of the ads, the District Court concluded that the ads were not express advocacy or its functional equivalent, but instead 'genuine issue ads.' This appeal resulted.