Abstract
In the realm of political campaigns, money is speech. Millions of dollars are poured into federal campaigns and lobbying efforts aimed at political candidates every election year. For more than a century, since Congress first sought to regulate campaign financing, an uncomfortable tension has existed between freedom of political speech and curtailing corruption. Federal Election Commission v. Wisconsin Right to Life, Inc. (WRTL) marks the most recent swing in the campaign finance reform struggle. In WRTL, the Supreme Court found Section 203 of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 (BCRA) unconstitutional as applied to three issue advocacy advertisements. This finding created an exception to the BCRA making enforcement of campaign finance laws questionable at best. This Casenote postulates that, although the Supreme Court correctly decided WRTL, it should have gone farther to find Section 203 facially unconstitutional. Rather than the continual increases in restriction to campaign finance that have been ineffectually implemented over the past century, the legislature should try a new approach to campaign finance regulation: namely, Congress should unleash electioneering by tailoring back the restrictions to electioneering communication. By increasing disclosure requirements, eliminating the ban on corporate and union contributions, increasing contribution limits, and setting fundraising limits, Congress may finally be able to balance free speech while inhibiting corruption.
Recommended Citation
Michelle D. Clark,
Unleashing Electioneering: Analyzing the Court’s Decision in Federal Election Commission v. Wisconsin Right to Life, Inc., 127 S. Ct. 2652 (2007),
33
S. Ill. U. L.J.
121
(2008).
Available at:
https://opensiuc.lib.siu.edu/siulj/vol33/iss1/5