Have we finally seen the last of McCain-Fingold? The Democrats and some well intentioned and yet misguided Republicans attempted to keep corporations from buying elections so they passed an extremely flawed bill called the Campaign Finance Reform Act or McCain-Feingold. While the writers of the bill may have had good intentions, it violates free speech, pure and simple. Wikipedia gets to the meat of the matter this way:
The BCRA was a mixed bag for those who wanted to remove big money from politics. It eliminated all soft money donations to the national party committees, but it also doubled the contribution limit of hard money, from $1,000 to $2,000 per election cycle, with a built-in increase for inflation. In addition, the bill aimed to curtail ads by non-party organizations by banning the use of corporate or union money to pay for “electioneering communications,” a term defined as broadcast advertising that identifies a federal candidate within 30 days of a primary or nominating convention, or 60 days of a general election.
The effect of BCRA was to stifle free speech. McCain-Feingold in effect did not accomplish what it intended. By not allowing corporations to give money directly to the candidates or soft money to the political organizations, it allowed the more controversial 527 groups. 527 refers to the IRS tax code which allows corporations to give literally an unlimited amount of money to causes.
After much debate, the courts are finally beginning to show some sense when it comes to how the corporations can donate to individual candidates. The first shot across the bow of McCain-Feingold came with Citizens United vs. Federal Election Commission in 2010.
There is simply no support for the view that the First Amendment, as originally understood, would permit the suppression of political speech by media corporations. The Framers may not have anticipated modern business and media corporations. See McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Comm’n, 514 U. S. 334, 360–361 (1995) (THOMAS, J., concurring in judgment). Yet television networks and major newspapers owned by media corporations have become the most important means of mass communication in modern times. The First Amendment was certainly not understood to condone the suppression of political speech in society’s most salient media. It was understood as a response to the repression of speech and the press that had existed in England and the heavy taxes on the press that were imposed in the colonies.
The next shot across the bow of McCain-Feingold was from the U.S. District for the Eastern District of Virginia. The only reason this judge even had to rule was the fact that the Supreme Court did not make the logical step from corporations are not exempt from free speech because they are a corporation to giving actual money to political candidates instead of like-kind as in communications.
A federal judge ruled Thursday the ban on corporations giving money directly to political candidates is unconstitutional.
In a case involving two Virginia men accused of illegally donating money to Hillary Clinton’s Senate and presidential campaigns, Judge James Cacheris of the U.S. District for the Eastern District of Virginia delivered a ruling on Thursday that dismissed a charge against two men by finding that if corporations are entitled to the same freedom of speech rights as individuals — as was ruled by the Supreme Court — then corporations should have the same rights as individuals when donating money to political campaigns.
So now we have a Supreme Court case which favored the Republicans against Hilary Clinton and a District Judge ruling for the Democrats giving money to Hilary Clinton. It was an ill conceived law which violated the First Amendment to the Constitution. May now we can say once and for all, McCain-Feingold is dead.
