From The AP:
"WASHINGTON (AP) -- 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.
"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 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 irony smells really fishy to me. Still I do wonder if the court could have been right in this case. After all the provision 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."
While I haven't seen the ad one could argue that it had nothing to do with Feingold's reelection, though it is a round about way of bringing the issue of Feingold's abortion stance to light. It's that fuzzy area that might need judicial interpretation. However in '08 it's going to be interesting to see what ads will get through the new hole in this provision, just as much as what impact youtube ads will have as well.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment