Judge OKs '07 political-ad spending

A federal judge has upheld the legality of an unusual $1.2 million advertising campaign in last year's Supreme Court race, ruling that it complied with a settlement to which state Attorney General Thomas Corbett agreed last summer.

The combination - Corbett's settlement agreement and this week's ruling by U.S. District Judge Anita B. Brody - appears to put a major loophole into Pennsylvania's ban on corporate campaign contributions.

Brody ruled that under the settlement agreement, a Virginia-based organization called the Center for Individual Freedom (CFIF) was acting legally in spending about $1.2 million on ads promoting Maureen Lally-Green, a candidate for the state Supreme Court, as long as the ads did not use specific words like "elect," "defeat" or "vote for."

Brody rejected Corbett's argument that the ads violated the settlement agreement and ordered that Pennsylvania taxpayers reimburse the Virginia group for its legal expenses defending the ads, which could total $100,000, one of its attorneys estimated.

It remains unknown who contributed the money for CFIF's television spots.

The group, based in Alexandria, Va., is registered with the IRS as a nonprofit corporation. It never registered with state officials as a political committee or filed campaign-finance reports saying where its money originated.

Thomas W. Kirby, one of the Washington attorneys representing CFIF, said that under the stipulated judgment to which Corbett agreed last summer, the group was not subject to Pennsylvania's registration and disclosure requirements.

Corbett spokesman Kevin Harley said that Corbett disagrees with Brody's decision and will review it to see if there is a legal basis for appealing to the 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals.

Leslie Amoros, a spokeswoman for the Pennsylvania Department of State, said state election officials "will pursue all possible legal avenues" to ensure that voters "know who is spending money to influence their votes."

In the meantime, Pennsylvania's absolute ban on campaign contributions by corporations and labor unions will remain severely weakened.

CFIF had sued in U.S. District Court last July, challenging that ban as unconstitutionally broad and vague, and violating the First Amendment rights of a group like CFIF. Barely a month later, Corbett and CFIF agreed to a stipulated judgment that Brody signed.

It said that the state law defining political expenditures would apply only to spending for "express advocacy" as defined in a landmark 1976 U.S. Supreme Court case - expenditures that specifically urged the election or defeat of a candidate, using clear words like "elect" or "defeat."

In October, in the final two weeks before the election, CFIF bought hundreds of 30-second TV spots, praising Lally-Green for "cracking down on violent criminals" and "protecting children who are victims of abuse." The ads urged viewers to "thank" Lally-Green, but never mentioned the election or used the words "elect" or "vote for."

Lally-Green, a Republican sitting on the state Superior Court, finished a distant third in the race for two Supreme Court seats. *