CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTIONS RAISED ABOUT ISSUE AD LIMITS
Protecting First Amendment “doesn’t require laws that can be so easily debated that they can’t be taken seriously,” said attorney Roger Witten in panel discussion on recently enacted Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (BCRA) at Media Institute’s first Cornerstone Luncheon May 28. Law’s restrictions on issue advertising and political speech have raised serious constitutional questions, Media Institute said.
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
Timely, relevant coverage of court proceedings and agency rulings involving tariffs, classification, valuation, origin and antidumping and countervailing duties. Each day, Trade Law Daily subscribers receive a daily headline email, in-depth PDF edition and access to all relevant documents via our trade law source document library and website.
Thomas Mann of Brookings Institution said new campaign law wasn’t “revolution,” but was “modest change of law.” “This is the effort to take us back where we were,” he said, referring to post-Watergate reform that put limits on contributions to political parties but was submerged in 1988 in wave of unregulated “soft money.” However, Kenneth Starr said law had nothing to do with restoration of previous system and “nothing has changed.”
Mann said campaign reform law would strengthen political parties, including those in states, and thus strengthen American democracy. He said “soft money” hadn’t helped parties. “Parties can adapt well to this law,” he said: “Enough money is given to them.” However, Attorney Jan Baran said law made it crime for political parties to raise campaign money: “The law doesn’t say don’t take money. It goes beyond that. It says it will be a crime for party officials to go and ask corporations, unions or individuals to donate money for their campaigns.” Starr said if criminal aspect were involved, “the law should be expressed with crystal clarity.”
Baran said law “defunded” political parties by restricting amount of “soft money” available for parties. Witten disagreed, saying “we are not talking just about money, but about lots of money.” He said voters weren’t satisfied with way politicians raised campaign money. “According to a CNN poll, 83% of people think that these funds buy influence,” he said.
Witten said law didn’t ban freedom of speech, but restricted sources of funds: “It doesn’t touch individuals, but applies to corporations and unions that want to use their treasury funds to support the candidates.” Starr said law had many anomalies, one of which was that ban applied to broadcast but not to print journalism. “Go to the New York Times or USA Today -- no problem. However, the problem arises when it comes to broadcast media,” he said.