From Reuters

Supreme Court Hears Campaign Finance Law Case

By James Vicini
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - In a case affecting presidential and congressional elections in 2004 and beyond, opponents urged the U.S. Supreme Court on Monday to strike down a historic campaign finance law while supporters defended it for restricting the influence of money in politics.
In a showdown over the most sweeping overhaul of the nation's campaign finance system in 30 years, the high court considered whether the law violated First Amendment rights of free speech and association, and intruded on the rights of states.
Lawyer Kenneth Starr, representing Republican Sen. Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, one of the law's opponents, argued it goes too far, shifting power from political parties to special interest groups.
The law "intrudes deeply into the political life of the nation," argued Starr, who is best known as the independent counsel who investigated President Bill Clinton over his affair with a White House intern.
He said the law represented a "federal intrusion" by regulating "state and local political activity at the most grass roots level."
The law, sponsored in the Senate by Arizona Republican John McCain and Wisconsin Democrat Russ Feingold, was approved by Congress and signed by President Bush in 2002 after seven years of debate. It took effect in November.
McCain and Feingold sat in the first row in the spectator section, listening intently to the arguments. On the other side of the crowded courtroom sat McConnell and other congressional opponents.
The key provision of law, at issue in the first two hours of the four hours of scheduled arguments, banned unlimited "soft money" contributions to national political parties.
Soft money means large unregulated, and therefore unlimited, contributions to political parties. Both Democrats and Republicans benefited from these although the Republicans had an edge in raising so-called "hard," or regulated, money.
The remaining two hours of arguments were to deal with restrictions on broadcast ads by corporations and unions right before elections and a ban on donations by minors.
Solicitor General Theodore Olson, the government's top courtroom lawyer, defended the law as necessary to protect the integrity of the federal elections by preventing corruption.
MONEY AS DRIVING FORCE
"Money had become the No. 1, operative driving force," Olson told the justices. He said the law sought to prevent an erosion of public confidence in the political system.
But Chief Justice William Rehnquist, who along with Justice Sandra Day O'Connor is considered a key vote who may control the outcome, appeared skeptical of Olson's argument.
"I don't think Congress can willy-nilly regulate any contribution to a federal election campaign," Rehnquist said.
The case may produce the most important Supreme Court ruling on money and politics since a landmark 1976 decision that upheld campaign contribution limits, but struck down spending limits for violating free-speech rights.
The last time the court heard four hours of arguments on one issue was in November 1975, when it considered the campaign finance law adopted after the Watergate scandal. Usually, the court hears one hour of arguments for a case.
The justices cut short their normal summer vacations to hear the case about a month before the formal opening of their new term.
The last special argument session held during the summer recess occurred in July 1974 when the court denied President Richard Nixon's claim of executive privilege to try to withhold the White House tapes from the Watergate special prosecutor.
The most liberal members, Justices John Paul Stevens, David Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer, generally appeared supportive of the law.
Justices Antonin Scalia and Anthony Kennedy appeared troubled by the law. Justice Clarence Thomas typically did not ask any questions, but in the past he has opposed campaign finance laws.
Kennedy said the law regulated political parties, but the news media, for example, was exempted. "That seems to me a very curious balance in a democratic society," he said.
Lawyer Seth Waxman, representing the congressional sponsors, said the law should not be struck down based on "a Chicken Little prediction" that has not happened so far -- the shifting of power to special interest groups from political parties.
The court is expected to issue its decision by the end of the year, so the rules will be in place before the first presidential primary in January and well ahead of the November 2004 elections.