McCain-Feingold Watch

by Sal on April 25, 2007

in Judicial Watch,Politics

Oral arguments were held today in the Supreme Court for the case FEC v. Wisconsin Right to Lifeinvolve ads that WRL wanted to run during the 2004 election cycle urging Russ Feingold to support a piece of Pro-life legislation.  This ad fell under McCain-Feingold’s draconian 60-day rule, and was not allowed to be aired.  The case is now before the SCOTUS, and both Roberts and Scalia appear to be itching to overturn the 2003 decision McConnell v. Federal Election Commission.  In 2003, it was Rehnquist, Scalia, Thomas and Kennedy dissenting against Ginsburg, Souter, Stevens, Breyer, and O’Connor.  During arguments, Roberts expressed disdain for restrictions on speech, so the crux of where this ruling will come down appears to fall on Justice Alito.  Given his seeming preference for narrow rulings as opposed to the broad overturning of cases, I predict that the case will allow ads such as the one presented in this case, but will fall short of overturning McConnell

{ 3 comments… read them below or add one }

Mike April 25, 2007 at 2:13 pm

I predict the liberal four will vote to uphold the restrictions while relying on McConnell. Because the four will rely on it, Alito and company should address it and reverse it.

In terms of narrow opinions, there are troubling signs on the Alito front, especially in statutory interpretation cases. It seems that Alito is capable of looking far beyond the text of a statute to examine its purpose. Although Alito’s policy preferences are in line with mine, I am slightly troubled by his early approach to reaching the right results.


Mike April 25, 2007 at 4:07 pm

Just to clarify, I am an enthusiastic supporter of Justice Alito. The presence of warning signs are just that and nothing more. Alito’s overall body of work up until now has been solid.

As for this case, I predict that the First Amendment will be applied and that McConnell will be reversed. Though I’m a little less confident now that my prediction is in writing.


Ryan April 25, 2007 at 6:27 pm

The “Incumbancy Protection Act of 2002″ limits speech in such a ridiculous way that I’m surprised it’s lasted this long… Well, perhaps not looking at Congress and the inept Rehnquist Court. I have the same hopes as Mike, but I still need to see more from the Roberts Court to feel secure.


Leave a Comment

You can use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

Previous post:

Next post: