Frigid temperatures this weekend prompt cold weather advisories

MPR News helps you turn down the noise and build shared understanding. Turn up your support for this public resource and keep trusted journalism accessible to all. 

Turn Up Your Support

(AP) - 
      The court, split 5-4, upheld an appeals court ruling that an
anti-abortion group should have been allowed to air ads during the
final two months before the 2004 elections. 

The law unreasonably
limits speech and violates the group's First Amendment rights, the
court said.

      The case involved advertisements that Wisconsin Right to Life
was prevented from broadcasting. The ads asked voters to contact
the state's two senators, Democrats Russ Feingold and Herb Kohl,
and urge them not to filibuster President Bush's judicial nominees.

      Feingold, a co-author of the campaign finance law, was up for
re-election in 2004.

      The provision in question was aimed at preventing the airing of
issue ads that cast candidates in positive or negative lights while
stopping short of explicitly calling for their election or defeat.

Sponsors of such ads have contended they are exempt from certain
limits on contributions in federal elections.

      Chief Justice John Roberts, joined by his conservative allies,
wrote a majority opinion upholding the appeals court ruling.

      The majority itself was divided in how far justices were willing
to go in allowing issue ads.

      Three justices, Anthony Kennedy, Antonin Scalia and Clarence
Thomas, would have overruled the court's 2003 decision upholding
the constitutionality of the provision.

      Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito said only that the Wisconsin
group's ads are not the equivalent of explicit campaign ads and are
not covered by the court's 2003 decision.

      That court, differently composed, upheld large portions of the
law in its 2003 decision, including the provision in question in
the current case.

      On Monday, Justice David Souter, joined by his three liberal
colleagues, said in his dissent that the court "effectively and,
unjustifiably, overruled" the earlier decision.

      The ads could have been run, Souter pointed out, had they been
paid for out of the group's political action committee, which is
subject to federal campaign finance limits. Or Feingold's name
could have been omitted, he said.

      "Thus, what is called a 'ban' on speech is a limit on the
financing of electioneering broadcasts by entities...that insist on
acting as conduits from the campaign war chests of business
corporations," Souter said.

      Justices Stephen Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and John Paul
Stevens joined Souter's dissent.

      The Bush administration urged the court to ban the ads, arguing
that they were meant to influence the elections, not lobby the
senators.

      The consolidated case is Federal Election Commission v.
Wisconsin Right to Life, 06-969, and McCain v. Wisconsin Right to
Life, 06-970.

Gallery

Crime, Law and Justice

Courts

In a case originating in Wisconsin, the Supreme Court loosened restrictions Monday on corporate- and union-funded television ads that air close to
elections, weakening a key provision of a landmark campaign finance law.


Supreme Court allows "issue ads" close to elections

Go Deeper.

Like this?