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.
Continue reading "Appeals Court Decision: Is McCain-Feingold Now On The Ropes?" >
categories: Money Talks
