Supreme Court campaign finance decision may hinge on flawed database
GibsonWhen the U.S. Supreme Court issues its much-awaited decision on the constitutionality of the controversial McCain-Feingold campaign reform legislation, its arguments may hinge on testimony regarding the validity of a political advertising database used to push for the legislation. Supporters of the legislation claim the database provides clear and compelling evidence that McCain-Feingold reforms do not infringe upon free speech, but this is far from the truth, according to James L. Gibson, a Washington University political scientist who served as expert witness when the case was heard in a lower court. His analysis found the database to be “riddled with internal errors and inconsistencies.”
Supreme Court should raise the First Amendment bar in landmark campaign finance regulation case, says legal scholar
The U.S. Supreme Court will hold an unusual four-hour session Sept. 8 to hear constitutional challenges to the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002; some suggest the case could determine which political party wins the White House in 2004. D. Bruce La Pierre, a law professor who argued a Missouri campaign finance case before the Court in 2000, suggests the Court should use the BCRA case to rethink two recent decisions that have severely eroded First Amendment protection for political speech. It’s time, he argues, for the Court to send a clear message that campaign contributions are firmly protected by the First Amendment.