FEC v. Wisconsin Right to Life, Inc., 551 U.S. 449 (2007)
Primary Holding
The First Amendment requires that political speech be protected, and as such, the regulation of speech under Section 203 of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act must not suppress genuine issue advocacy that mentions federal candidates, as it is not the "functional equivalent" of express campaign speech.
In the case of FEC v. Wisconsin Right to Life, the Supreme Court decided that certain political speech, especially when discussing issues that mention federal candidates, should be protected under the First Amendment. This is important because it means that organizations and individuals can express their views on public issues without being overly restricted by campaign finance laws, as long as their speech isn’t directly telling people to vote for or against a specific candidate. For consumers, this ruling helps ensure that their rights to discuss political issues freely are upheld, allowing for more open debate and expression in the political arena. This case is relevant when someone wants to advocate for a cause or issue that involves a federal candidate, as it clarifies that they can do so without fear of legal penalties, as long as their speech is not purely campaign-focused.
AI-generated plain-language summary to help you understand this case
In the case of Federal Election Commission v. Wisconsin Right to Life, Inc., the underlying dispute arose from Wisconsin Right to Life, Inc. (WRTL), a nonprofit corporation, which sought to air advertisements that mentioned federal candidates shortly before elections. These ads were characterized as "issue advocacy" rather than "express advocacy" for the candidates, and WRTL argued that they were protected under the First Amendment. The Federal Election Commission (FEC) contended that these ads violated Section 203 of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 (BCRA), which prohibits corporations from broadcasting communications that name federal candidates within a specific timeframe before elections. The procedural history of the case began with WRTL filing a lawsuit against the FEC, challenging the constitutionality of the BCRA's restrictions as applied to its advertisements. Initially, the U.S. District Court ruled in favor of WRTL, allowing the ads to be aired. The FEC appealed this decision, leading to a prior Supreme Court ruling (Wisconsin Right to Life, Inc. v. Federal Election Commission, 546 U.S. 410 (2006)), which clarified that the Court's earlier decision in McConnell v. Federal Election Commission did not preclude as-applied challenges to Section 203. This case ultimately reached the Supreme Court again, which was tasked with determining whether WRTL's advertisements constituted the "functional equivalent" of express campaign speech or were genuine issue ads. The relevant background context includes the Supreme Court's previous decision in McConnell, which upheld the constitutionality of Section 203 against a facial challenge, but acknowledged that the regulation of issue advocacy might be treated differently. The distinction between campaign advocacy and issue advocacy is critical, as the Court recognized that candidates are often closely associated with public issues. This case was significant in further defining the boundaries of political speech and the First Amendment's protections, particularly concerning the regulation of corporate speech in the context of elections.
Whether the Federal Election Commission's regulation under Section 203 of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002, which restricts corporate speech that names federal candidates shortly before elections, is unconstitutional as applied to certain communications that are not the "functional equivalent" of express campaign advocacy.
The judgment of the lower court is reversed.
- Court
- Supreme Court
- Decision Date
- April 25, 2007
- Jurisdiction
- federal
- Case Type
- landmark
- Damages Awarded
- N/A
- Data Quality
- high
Wisconsin Right to Life, Inc. v. Federal Election Comm'n, 546 U.S. 410 (2006)
Consumer WonThe Supreme Court held that the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act's prohibition on electioneering communications can be subject to as-applied constitutional challenges, allowing organizations like Wisconsin Right to Life, Inc. to argue that specific communications should not be classified as electioneering based on their content and context.
Davis v. Federal Election Comm’n, 554 U.S. 724 (2008)
Consumer LostThe provisions of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act that create different campaign contribution limits for candidates competing for the same congressional seat based on personal expenditures violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
Randall v. Sorrell, 548 U.S. 230 (2006)
Consumer WonBoth the expenditure limits and the contribution limits imposed by Vermont's campaign finance statute are unconstitutional under the First Amendment, as they violate established precedent and fail to meet the requirement of careful tailoring, imposing disproportionately severe burdens on First Amendment interests.
Johanns v. Livestock Marketing Association, 544 U.S. 550 (2005)
Consumer LostThe generic advertising funded by the Beef Promotion and Research Act constitutes government speech and is therefore exempt from First Amendment scrutiny.