...of info. I don't want to distract from what Jeff wrote about the Q2 fundraising, so go read that first, go donate, and then come back here.

First, from Jim Geraghty:

Down Goes Cloture! Down Goes Cloture!
Down goes cloture! Down goes the immigration deal, for the second time! 46 to 53 is the final vote.

Sam Brownback ultimately voted "no" after initally voting "yes."

McCain voted yes.

If I am not mistaken, all the Democratic senators running for president voted yes.

Second, another important Supreme Court decision, this time striking down the use of race in elementary and secondary schools to acheive a racial balance.

Labels: Immigration, Supreme Court

First off, I want to encourage our readers to read the actual opinion. If you want to get a good idea about the arguments involved in the campaign finance reform issue, the majority opinion, concurrences, and dissent all provide a good representation of the different sides of the argument.

Here’s a little about the case. It is a follow-up case to McConnell v. FEC. McConnell decided that McCain-Feingold was valid just from a reading of the language, but left open the question of whether in actual application it would still be constitutional (or in legal terms, an “as applied challenge”). FEC v. Wisconsin Right to Life resolves the question of the as applied challenge. Chief Justice Roberts, the majority author, decided that McCain Feingold is unconstitutional as applied to the issue ads by WRTL without reversing McConnell. Justice Alito concurred, noting that he would be open to overruling McConnell depending on the effect of the WRTL case’s effect. Justices Scalia, Thomas, and Kennedy concurred in the result, but stated that McConnell should be overruled. Justices Souter, Stevens, Breyer, and Ginsburg dissented.

In a sense this is both a small and a big win for free speech. It’s a small win because the actual outcome is fairly narrow. This follows the general judicial philosophy of Justices Roberts and Alito, who generally have been deciding cases on narrow grounds rather than making grander pronouncements. Roberts’ declination to overrule McConnell makes this holding of this case fairly narrow, dealing only with what is and what isn’t an issue ad. Much like the partial-birth abortion case, Gonzales v. Carhart, the narrow grounds upon which the case was decided tempers the ability of the winning side to make any grand pronouncements as to the effect of the case.

On the other hand, this is a big win for McCain-Feingold’s opponents. The test set forth by Roberts is exacting. It will make McCain-Feingold essentially toothless for any political ad other than those expressly advocating the election or defeat of a candidate. Additionally, WRTL paves the way for further erosion and the possible overturning of McCain-Feingold in its entirety. Three Justices already openly advocate it. Alito signaled that he could be convinced to do so. Roberts is more cryptic, but it seems likely at the least that he would also be willing to overturn it. Such a reversal would be a huge win for such a conservative cause as the First Amendment. (Note that usually the first amendment is a clarion call for liberals defending the worst human behavior – i.e. “bong hits for Jesus - while suppressing its intended purpose of promoting political speech).

McCain (and possibly Fred Thompson) should be embarrassed for supporting such a blatant infringement of the First Amendment. While his concern with political corruption is laudable, silencing political speech is directly prohibited by the First Amendment, and certainly is not the method to avoid corruption. That McCain would choose to sacrifice free speech for the sake of political candidates is indefensible. Roberts’ judicious approach to the law leaves McCain-Feingold still alive but on life-support. Had Justice Scalia been writing the majority opinion, he would have left nothing of McCain-Feingold’s restrictions on speech. Indeed, as Scalia notes in his concurrence:

There is wondrous irony to be found in both the genesis and the consequences of [McCain-Feingold]. In the fact that the institutions it was designed to muzzle—unions and nearly all manner of corporations—for all the “corrosive and distorting effects” of their “immense aggregations of wealth,” were utterly impotent to prevent the passage of this legislation that forbids them to criticize candidates (including incumbents). In fact the effect of [McCain-Feingold] has been to concentrate more political power in the hands of the country’s wealthiest individuals and their so-called 527organizations, unregulated by §203. (In the 2004 election cycle, a mere 24 individuals contributed an astounding total of $142 million to 527s.) And, in fact, while these wealthy individuals dominate political discourse, it is this small, grass-roots organization of Wisconsin Right to Life that is muzzled.

Score this a win for free speech and Romney.

Labels: mccain-feingold, Supreme Court, Wisconsin Right to Life

...at least in part. The court, split 5-4, in upholding an appeals court ruling that an anti-abortion group should have been allowed to air ads during the final two months before the 2004 elections.

I haven't seen the opinion yet, but will have my take as soon as I can.

Labels: mccain-feingold, Supreme Court

Marc Ambinder over at the Atlantic has a small preview of what will be an important decision from the Supreme Court in Wisconsin Right to Life v. The Federal Election Commission. The case challenges McCain-Feingold's restrictions on speech. Wisconsin Right to Life was represented by one James Bopp. Most of us Romney followers know him from his advising role to Governor Romney, but in the conservative movement he is most prominently known for his role in arguing conservative causes before the Supreme Court.

Obviously this decision will have political implications (that Ambinder lays out nicely). At the basic level, a win for WRTL would be a win for Romney. A win for the FEC would be a win for McCain and possibly Thompson, who was also a big part of passing McCain-Feingold. However, if the FEC wins this case, I can't see that McCain will suddenly have a boost in popularity. Conservatives are decidedly against McCain-Feingold and upholding the constitutionality of the law would not suddenly sway conservative votes.

The decision is supposed to be out today and I will have my take as soon as I can read it.

Labels: james bopp, John McCain, mccain-feingold, Supreme Court