Court should strike campaign finance law provisions challenged by antiabortion group, uphold other requirements

Although a Supreme Court ruling in favor of a Wisconsin antiabortion group's constitutional challenge to the McCain-Feingold federal campaign finance law would be "good news for those ... who believe that Americans have a constitutional right to petition and criticize public officials," the court should uphold "reasonable provisions" of the law, a Los Angeles Times editorial says ( Los Angeles Times , 4/27).

Wisconsin Right to Life in its lawsuit challenging McCain-Feingold was seeking permission to run television and radio advertisements within 30 days of a 2004 primary that mentioned Sen. Russell Feingold's (D-Wis.) name and focused on his opposition to several of President Bush's judicial nominees. The group claims that the campaign finance law's provisions that prohibit the use of interest groups' "issue ads" during the weeks preceding an election are unconstitutional.

A three-judge panel of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia in August 2004 unanimously rejected WRTL's challenge to the provisions in the law. The Supreme Court in January 2006 said that when it had upheld the law's provision concerning "electioneering communications" against a "facial challenge" in 2003, it did "not purport to resolve future as-applied challenges." The justices ordered the district court to "consider the merits: of WRTL's challenge. A three-judge panel of the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia in December 2006 overturned provisions of the law that restrict issue ads ( Kaiser Daily Women's Health Policy Report, 4/26).

According to the editorial, the Supreme Court likely will overturn the provisions WRTL is challenging. However, it's important that the court "stop there" and not overturn provisions of the law that create "reasonable limits on the size of contributions to candidates and parties," the editorial says ( Los Angeles Times , 4/27).