The U.S. Court of Appeals has issued an opinion on what independent groups may spend to influence federal elections.

Now we're trying to figure out exactly what it means.

First, the decision. In the case of Emily's List v. Federal Election Commission, the court was asked by Emily's List, an organization that recruits and funds pro-choice Democratic women for political office, to strike down the limits set by the FEC on non-profit/independent advocacy groups following the 2004 elections on what they could spend on its candidates. The FEC said so-called unlimited "soft money" violated the McCain-Feingold law, and that if Emily's List wanted to spend on elections, they could only rely on "hard money" contributions — money raised from individuals or political action committees, with caps on how much they can donate.

Emily's List said its free-speech rights were limited. Today, the appeals court agreed.

The ruling was a victory not only for Emily's List but for foes of campaign spending limits, such as the National Rifle Association and Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-KY), the Republican leader who spearheaded the opposition to McCain-Feingold.

The question is what's next.

 

The U.S. Supreme Court is currently reviewing a case involving a film that criticized then-presidential candidate Hillary Clinton, and whether it violated limits on corporate spending on political activities.

Both the Emily's List case and the Hillary Clinton case (Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission) center around campaign-finance limits. And if the Supreme Court rules in favor of Citizens United — the group that put together the anti-Clinton film — some fear, and others hope, that previously accepted limits on political money will tumble. And that would include McCain-Feingold.

It's a hope of the Center for Competitive Politics, a group "dedicated to promoting freedom and defending the First Amendment in politics." On its blog, Steve Hoersting writes, "We have made similar arguments in related contexts. ... But we have never said them better" than today's court decision.

And it's a fear of Fred Wertheimer, president of Democracy 21, which supports limits on campaign spending:

While we continue to think the FEC regulations are proper and valid, the fact is that the FEC's failure to enforce existing campaign finance rules has resulted in campaign activities by outside 527 groups being mostly unconstrained. This decision means they will continue to function unconstrained.

Tara Malloy of The Campaign Legal Center was similarly dismayed:

Today's decision from the D.C. Circuit Court to further deregulate the election-related spending of political committees and "527 groups" throws aside judicial restraint in a rush to reach preferred policy results. Such broad overreach is not the responsibility of the Circuit Court and amounts to nothing more than judicial activism. ... Although the FEC has had, at best, a spotty record enforcing these [spending] limits, the Court's decision today has the potential to facilitate a return to the massive soft money spending by 527 groups in prior elections.

And Larry Noble, a former general counsel of the FEC who has been active in campaign-finance cases, "said he is worried that the courts are going to leave a campaign finance system 'so full of holes that it will be basically ineffective.'":

Overall the courts are pulling back on the campaign finance laws, and after all the dust settles we'll have to see what the system looks like. The question is: Will Congress do anything about it?

There are lots of questions in the wake of the court's ruling.