isions of BCRA violated constitutional protections of freedom of speech. In 2003, the Supreme Court upheld most of the law in its ruling McConnell v. FEC. It reasoned that since the law’s ban was on soft money, which could not be used to help elect a candidate directly but rather was spent on party activities such as get-out-the-vote efforts, then its li
After the passage of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (BCRA, also known as McCain-Feingold) in 2002, groups including the Democratic Party of California, the National Rifle Association, and individuals, including Mitch McConnell who was at the time the Senate Majority Whip, brought a case against the Federal Election Commission arguing that the provisions of BCRA violated constitutional protections of freedom of speech. In 2003, the Supreme Court upheld most of the law in its ruling McConnell v. FEC. It reasoned that since the law’s ban was on soft money, which could not be used to help elect a candidate directly but rather was spent on party activities such as get-out-the-vote efforts, then its limits on free speech were minimal. It argued further that even if ads paid for by unions and corporations were not shown to lead to corruption, to protect the legitimacy of its institutions, the state had an interest in protecting against “both the actual corruption threatened by large financial contributions and...the appearance of corruption.”
A. Identify the constitutional clause that is common to both McConnell v. FEC (2003) and Citizens United v. FEC (2010).
(Is this the First Amendment's Freedom of Expression Clause?)
B. Based on the constitutional clause identified in part A, explain how the facts in Citizens United v. FEC led to a different holding than McConnell v. FEC.
C. Explain an action that interest groups who disagree with the holding in Citizens United v. FEC (2010) could take to limit its impact.
Trending now
This is a popular solution!
Step by step
Solved in 3 steps
