Verdicts split in 2 campaign-finance cases
Judges say political parties can't seek unlimited funds from donors, but independent groups can.
WASHINGTON - Federal judges in Washington handed down split verdicts in two separate decisions yesterday on campaign fund-raising, ruling that the Republican National Committee and other political parties may not seek huge and unlimited amounts from wealthy donors but that independent groups may do so.
The rulings came in a pair of cases testing the legal limits on money in politics.
The RNC and several conservative groups have been filing suits in recent years to challenge the money limits on free-speech grounds, confident that the Supreme Court now agrees with their view.
They won a major victory in January when the high court freed corporate and independent groups to spend as much as they wished on their own to elect or defeat candidates. But that 5-4 ruling, in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, did not deal with the limits on how much money could be contributed directly to candidates or political parties.
The RNC and the California Republican Party had challenged those limits in a separate suit. A special three-judge U.S. District Court panel rejected the challenge yesterday, saying such a decision must come from the Supreme Court. The Democratic National Committee had joined the case on the side of the FEC to defend the law.
During the 1990s, both the Democratic and Republican Parties raised huge amounts from wealthy donors, corporations, and unions. They did so by maintaining that they were using the money to build the party, not to elect their candidates.
The McCain-Feingold Act in 2002 closed this so-called soft-money loophole and said parties could not receive more than $30,400 a year from individuals. State parties had similar but lower limits.
Although yesterday's ruling was a setback for the RNC, it may be only temporary. Party leaders have said their aim was to bring the issue before the Supreme Court.
In the other case decided yesterday, the full U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ruled 9-0 that SpeechNow.Org, an independent political group, had a right to raise and spend as much as it wished to endorse or oppose candidates. The judges said the Supreme Court's January ruling made clear that independent political spending could not be restricted by law.
However, the judges agreed that the group could be required to disclose its donors.
"The public has an interest in knowing who is speaking about a candidate and who is funding that speech," Chief Judge David Sentelle said.
The group is considering whether to appeal the disclosure-requirement ruling to the Supreme Court.
Fred Wertheimer, a longtime champion of the campaign-funding laws, took comfort from the ruling in the RNC case. He called it "a major victory in the battle to prevent corruption and the appearance of corruption of political parties and their federal candidates through unlimited campaign contributions."
RNC chairman Michael Steele said the Republicans would appeal to the Supreme Court. "In light of the Citizens United and SpeechNow rulings, today's decision underscores the need to restore political parties' First Amendment rights and balance to the political process," he said.
If the court takes the case, it would be unlikely to rule before the Nov. 2 elections.
Neither the January high court ruling nor yesterday's appeals decision changed the donation and spending restrictions placed on political action committees when they give directly to congressional and presidential candidates and national party committees. Spending that PACs coordinate with candidates or parties also is not affected.
PACs may still accept only limited donations from individuals and other PACs, and may give or spend limited amounts in concert with campaigns and party committees.