U.S. Supreme Court Loosens Free Speech Restrictions

By Doug Carlson - Jun 28, 2007 - comment

In a victory for proponents of First Amendment free speech protections, the U.S. Supreme Court weakened June 25 a portion of a campaign-finance reform law restricting free speech and ruled that organizations can broadcast ads that mention candidates by name just prior to elections, as long as the ads focus on issues and do not endorse or oppose federal candidates.

In a 5-4 decision, the high court upheld an appeals court ruling that Wisconsin Right to Life should have been allowed to air ads encouraging people to tell Senators Russ Feingold (D-WI) and Herb Kohl (D-WI) not to filibuster President Bush’s judicial nominees. Under a section of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002, better known as McCain-Feingold for the act’s chief sponsors, broadcasting electioneering communication, or campaign speech, paid for with general funds within 30 days prior to a primary election or 60 days prior to a general election is prohibited.

The case, FEC v. Wisconsin Right to Life, goes back to the run up to the 2004 elections, as Wisconsin Right to Life began airing the ads July 26 but then pulled them August 15, 30 days before the primary bid of Sen. Feingold, knowing that the ads would be prohibited under a section of the McCain-Feingold act. At that time, Wisconsin Right to Life filed suit against the Federal Election Commission in hopes a court would allow running the ads.

The high court’s majority, led by Chief Justice John Roberts, found the section of McCain-Feingold in question was unconstitutional when applied to the ads, because it restricted free speech protections granted in the First Amendment.

“[T]he First Amendment requires us to err on the side of protecting political speech rather than suppressing it,” wrote Chief Justice Roberts, who added, “Discussion of issues cannot be suppressed simply because the issues also may be pertinent in an election. Where the First Amendment is implicated, the tie goes to the speaker, not the censor.”

Associate Justices Samuel Alito, Anthony Kennedy, Antonin Scalia, and Clarence Thomas joined Chief Justice Roberts in the majority.

Since the Wisconsin Right to Life’s ads were issue-oriented, rather than an appeal for people to support or oppose a particular political candidate, the majority affirmed that the group should have been permitted to air the ads.

The court’s decision means grassroots organizations were restored another piece of their free speech protections and will be able to place ads that speak to the issues in the months before elections, as long as they do not endorse or oppose candidates.

The 5-4 ruling favoring free speech protections underscores the importance of President Bush’s nomination of Justices Roberts and Alito to the high court. The nomination and confirmation of two judicial activists, on the other hand, could have resulted in a 6-3 decision to keep in place restrictions on free speech.

The Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission, along with other pro-family organizations, lauds the court’s decision as a victory for free speech protections.

Further Learning

Learn more about: Life, Abortion, Citizenship, Christian Citizenship, National, Religious Liberty

Post a Comment




Notify me of follow-up comments?

Before You Submit Your Comment (below), Read This:

Thank you for your interest in the ministry of the Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission (SBC).

Comments are moderated to preserve the family-oriented nature of this website and in an attempt to avoid comment spam. We welcome opposing viewpoints, and we will not turn comments away as long as your views are presented with respect to everyone.

Your comments will not appear immediately and are subject to editing or deletion. We will make every attempt to check new comments in a timely manner, though there will likely be delays on the weekends and around holidays.

Please follow the these guidelines to insure your comments will be posted:

  1. Use a real name, at least a real first name. We find folks are less-rude online when not hiding behind a screen-name.
  2. Name-calling and vulgar-language will not be tolerated. Zero-tolerance is our policy. We will not spend time editing profanity. If it contains foul language, your post will be deleted. Oh, and we decide what is and what is not vulgar.
  3. Comments must be on topic. General comments (compliments, complaints, and otherwise) are best delivered here or expressed on your own personal Web site.
  4. And please, do not type in ALL CAPS. It looks like you're screaming at people.

Additionally, within Baptist polity, please recognize that many issues and decisions are addressed at a local church level. SBC denominational (national) offices have no control and desire no control over the activities of a local church. This entity is not responsible for overseeing and insuring the ethical behavior of Southern Baptist pastors or church members. If your concern involves a legal civil or criminal matter, we suggest you contact the proper local officials.

Issues involving pastoral staff or other church members, local Baptist associations or state Baptist conventions are local issues. Therefore the Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission cannot and should not address such issues. While we regret we are unable to assist you, we encourage you to seek a biblical resolution of the issue at the local church level. If your question or submission pertains to a matter covered in this text, it is likely we will not acknowledge your submission.

Other than that, we welcome you and hope to see thoughtful discussions at ERLC.com