McCain-Feingold

[Paul Salamanca]

I hope someone can clarify something for me about McCain-Feingold.  I'm
aware that the bill would ban certain advertisements within 60 days of an
election.  To whom would this ban apply?  To any person or organization, or
solely to organizations with tax-exempt status or organizations otherwise
subject to close regulation by the government?

                                                Paul Salamanca
                                                University of Kentucky
                                                College of Law

At 11:31 AM 3/15/2001 -0500, you wrote:
>        I am responsible for circulating the Brennan Center scholars'
letter in
>support of the McCain-Feingold Bill, and I am pleased to see that Bill Funk
>has attempted to stimulate some discussion concerning it on this listserve.
>
>        The thrust of the argument on the Snowe-Jeffords provisions is
that the
>"magic words" test created in Buckley footnote 52 was the Court's way of
>fixing the vagueness and overbreadth problems in one poorly drafted statute
>- the Federal Election Campaign Act.  FECA at the time purported to
>regulate ads that were "relative to an election" whatever that means.  In
>deciding whether the Snowe-Jeffords amendment (now a part of
>McCain-Feingold proper) is constitutional, the Court must first ask whether
>the new law suffers from either vagueness or substantial overbreadth.  If
>the law passes these tests, then there is no need for a narrowing
>construction.  The vagueness issue is a no-brainer, the McCain-Feingold
>Bill is very clear concerning what is covered and what is not.  Any radio
>or television ad broadcast within 60 days of an election or 30 days of a
>primary that mentions a candidate and is targeted to the relevant
>electorate is covered.  The more serious question is whether there is
>substantial overbreadth.  On that question, although we can all create very
>clever hypotheticals about true issue ads that might be run near an
>election and that mention a candidate, there is now a body of empirical
>evidence demonstrating that such ads are really quite rare.
>        Any scholars on this listserve who have not seen a copy of the
letter and
>may be interested in joining may e-mail me a personal response and I will
>e-mail in return a copy of the letter.  Anyone who has a copy and wants to
>respond is likewise encouraged to do so.  We would like to present Senators
>McCain and Feingold with a list of supporters before debate starts on Monday.
>
>        Glenn Moramarco
>
>
>
>At 10:57 AM 03/14/2001 -0800, you wrote:
>>As I am sure many others on this list have, I received a request from the
>>Brennan Center to sign onto a letter from law professors opining that the
>>McCain-Feingold bill, including the Snowe-Jeffords Amendment, is
>constitutional.
>>
>>That bill would totally ban so-called soft money contributions to national
>>political parties, thereby limiting them to the "hard money" contribution
>limits
>>in existing law as approved in Buckley v. Valeo.  Assuming Buckley is good
>law,
>>this prohibition does not seem to raise 1st Amendment problems.  Is there
any
>>disagreement on that?
>>The Snowe-Jeffords amendment creates a new category, "electioneering
>>communications." These are defined as radio or TV ads that refer to specific
>>candidates [I assume candidates for federal office] and are broadcast
>within 60
>>days of a general election or primary [I assume limited to federal
>elections or
>>primaries].  Any group that makes more than $10,000 in electioneering
>>communications must disclose its identity, the cost of the communication,
and
>>the names and addressees of all donors of more than $1,000.  Corporations
and
>>Unions cannot use their general funds to pay for electioneering
>communications.
>>They are already prohibited from using their general funds for
>contributions to
>>national political parties and federal candidates. They may use PACs.  This
>>amendment would seem to implicate Buckley's finding that limitations on
>>individual expenditures was unconstitutional.  The Amendment doesn't
actually
>>limit the expenditure, but it places various disclosure requirements on the
>>expenditures.  I'm curious what people think about these requirements.
>>
>>Bill Funk
>>Lewis & Clark Law School
>>
>
>
>Glenn Moramarco
>Senior Attorney
>Brennan Center for Justice at NYU School of Law
>161 Ave. of the Americas, 5th Floor
>New York, NY  10013
>(212) 998-6153  Fax (212) 995-4550
>
>
>