Unsympathetic court hears arguments on campaign finance

WASHINGTON -- The Supreme Court seemed unsympathetic Tuesday to arguments that groups with a point of view on such subjects as gun rights or abortion should be allowed to make political donations.

Previewing an anticipated showdown over the broader new campaign finance law, the justices will decide by this summer if the 32-year-old federal donation ban is unconstitutional. They are balancing the free speech rights of people in nonprofit advocacy corporations against the government's interest in keeping political campaigns clean.

The government argues that the groups could be used to circumvent individual campaign donation limits, with little public disclosure about where money comes from. Advocacy organizations maintain that their members should be allowed to pool their money and use it to elect candidates who support their issues.

The subject of campaign finance, which dominated Congress last year, is expected to consume much of the court's time this year.

In addition to this case, which involves a North Carolina anti-abortion organization, the justices are awaiting an appeal in a challenge to the campaign finance limits that took effect last fall. Multiple groups have sued over the law, and a lower court ruling is expected any time. The Supreme Court could schedule arguments before its summer break.

"It's a warmup. It involves the extent of constitutional protection for involvement in the political process and the role that advocacy groups play, just like McCain-Feingold," James Bopp Jr., the attorney for North Carolina Right to Life Inc., said after Tuesday's argument.

Justice Sandra Day O'Connor told Bopp that a 1982 ruling in a similar case makes it difficult for justices to side with his client. Several justices said that his case would be better if the ban involved campaign spending, instead of donations. The court has held that nonprofits cannot be barred from airing commercials supporting or opposing federal candidates.

In that decision, the nonprofit organization did not take corporate money. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg noted that North Carolina Right to Life accepted some donations from companies.

Justice Antonin Scalia was dismissive of Bopp's argument that the ban hurts speech. Anyone who wants to give to a candidate can do so, he said. "All you have to do is reach in your pocket and give them a dollar."

The North Carolina case is important with the emerging influence of nonprofits because of limits in the new campaign finance law. The law prohibits national political party committees from accepting so-called soft money, or unlimited contributions from businesses and unions.

"It is this type of organization that's going to be the key player in elections and financing campaigns," said Elizabeth Garrett, a law professor at the University of Chicago who has been studying campaign spending. "We as voters might want to know what they're doing and who they're supporting."

Individuals, political parties, political action committees and other campaigns can contribute to federal candidates and national party committees. Federal law prohibits donations from corporations, including advocacy groups organized as nonprofit corporations. Bush administration lawyer Paul Clement said interest groups can form political action committees to make donations. Groups do not want to because they would have to make their records public.

O'Connor asked Clement about the larger, pending campaign finance case. He said the court could deal with both because the issues raised in this case were "miraculously unaffected by the many reforms" approved by Congress.

© 2006 • All Rights Reserved • Tampa Bay Times
490 First Avenue South • St. Petersburg, FL 33701 • 727-893-8111

Contact the Times | Privacy Policy
Standard of Accuracy | Terms, Conditions & Copyright