| REDRESS |
|
|
NONPROFIT GROUPS WANT SAME RIGHTS AS PAC'S By Sharon Theimer, The Associated Press, Reported in Las Vegas Review-Journal, 11-19-02 WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court said Monday it will consider whether some interest groups should be allowed to contribute to federal candidates and parties, which could open a fresh avenue of political giving as a new campaign finance law closes another. Currently, only individuals, political parties, political action committees and other campaigns can contribute to federal candidates and national party committees. In the case before the high court, North Carolina Right to Life contends it and other tax-exempt, not-for-profit advocacy groups who rely on individual donors rather than businesses or union money also should be free to make political contributions. The group says the court should follow the same reasoning it used in a 1986 ruling that let such groups air commercials supporting or opposing federal candidates. In that case, Federal Election Commission vs. Massachusetts Citizens for Life, the court ruled that barring the groups from broadcasting their messages violated their free-speech rules without serving any compelling public purpose, such as fighting government corruption. The current case is "very important in terms of the political participation rights of advocacy groups," said James Bopp Jr., the North Carolina anti-abortion group's attorney. The 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals agreed, calling political contributions an "essential means by which citizens in a democracy can make themselves heard." The Federal Election Commission voted 3-2 against asking Solicitor General Theodore Olson to appeal to the Supreme Court. But Olson appealed anyway, telling the court it was his duty where the constitutionality of a federal law was at stake. The high court's decision came just after a campaign finance law went into effect to scale back sources of money that national party committees can accept. The law, which took effect Nov. 6, prohibits the committees from accepting so-called soft money, or unlimited contributions from businesses, unions and others. Soft money helped the Democratic and Republican parties raise record sums for fall election. While banning soft money, the law will increase limits on individual contributions to candidates and national party committees. Starting Jan. 1, an individual can give a federal candidates $2,0000 per election, twice as much as the old limit allowed. The individual contribution limits would apply to advocacy groups under the appeals court ruling, FED spokesman Bob Biersack said. Scott Thomas, one of two Democratic commissioners who wanted the FED to seek Supreme Court review of the North Carolina case, said he believes a ban on campaign contributions from advocacy groups is warranted. Thomas predicted that, if the high court upholds the 4th Circuit ruling, new advocacy groups will pop up to take advantage of the ability to donate, and many current groups will try to qualify. Commission Chairman David Mason, one of three Republicans on the six-member commission who voted against seeking Supreme Court review, said one factor was doubt about whether the court would consider it a significant enough case. They also were concerned about whether the court would want to handle it as it prepares to consider lawsuits over the new campaign finance law, Mason said. A lower court is considering challenges to that law, and it probably will be reviewed by the Supreme Court next year. WORKING TOGETHER TO ATTAIN FAIRNESS | ||
|
||
|
| ||
|
| ||
