THE VIRGINIAN-PILOT
Copyright (c) 1996, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: Thursday, June 27, 1996 TAG: 9606270428
SECTION: FRONT PAGE: A1 EDITION: FINAL
SOURCE: FROM WIRE REPORTS
DATELINE: WASHINGTON LENGTH: 110 lines
The Supreme Court ruled Wednesday that political parties can spend as much as they want on congressional races as long as they act independently of the candidates.
Until now, the federal election law has imposed limits on how much the parties can spend on House and Senate races. But the court, splitting 7-2 in a series of opinions, said it was a violation of the parties' free-speech rights to restrict them from engaging in ``independent expenditures'' on behalf of their candidates.
Proponents of the decision said it has the potential to revive parties as a more powerful force in American politics. Critics said it will only put more focus on fund raising in a system already awash in campaign cash.
``One thing seems sure - the cost of elections just went up,'' said Joan Claybrook, president of the nonprofit watchdog group Public Citizen.
The court ruling came one day after the Senate blocked action on a new campaign spending law.
While political experts agreed the Supreme Court decision will be significant in the coming years, most said they doubted it will have much effect this year. That is because most state and national parties already have ``coordinated'' their campaigns with a particular candidate, and the decision stopped short of striking down the limits on so-called ``coordinated expenditures.''
The ruling also sidestepped for now the larger question of whether party spending limits violate the constitutional guarantee of freedom of speech when the spending is done in coordination with individual campaigns, as is the normal practice for political parties.
A decision invalidating the spending caps entirely - allowing parties to spend as much as they want in concert with their candidates - would have revolutionized the campaign finance system.
The court left open the possibility that it might go that far, with four justices saying they were prepared to remove the restriction on party spending, two saying no, and three saying it was too early to decide that issue.
But Wednesday's ruling took an unexpected legal turn by opening a new and uncharted world of ``independent expenditures'' by political parties. For the spending to be independent, the party would not be allowed to coordinate with the candidate about the best message, timing or placement of advertising. In that regard, a party would be like other interest groups, such as political action committees, that operate independently of a candidate's campaign organization.
Election law experts and political strategists were scrambling to figure out how parties that usually work hand-in-glove with their nominees could make such expenditures.
``It introduces a remarkable new wrinkle into the campaign finance laws and some considerable sorting out will be required before anyone truly understands what impact it's going to have,'' said Robert Bauer, a lawyer for the Democratic House and Senate campaign committees.
Lawrence Noble, general counsel for the Federal Election Commission, said, ``The practical effect is going to depend on how much the parties are willing and able to undertake election activity without coordination with their candidate, and that I don't know.''
Some party officials said their plans for the 1996 campaign cycle were already in place and would probably be unaffected. But the National Republican Senatorial Committee called the ruling ``one of the most significant political developments of 1996'' and said it ``clearly works to our advantage.''
The Senate Republican group said it had about $12 million cash on hand, compared with about $4 million for the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee. A spokesman for the Democratic committee, Steve Jarding, disputed the benefit of the ruling, saying, ``They were going to spend the $12 million anyway.''
Election law experts said the ruling would have particular impact in tight races where the political parties concentrate maximum firepower and typically reach the spending limits.
The ruling involved a decade-old radio ad by the Colorado Republican party attacking then-Rep. Timothy E. Wirth, a Democrat, in his bid for a Senate seat. Colorado Democrats complained to the FEC that the state Republicans had exceeded their spending limit with the $15,000 radio buy, and the FEC agreed.
In the lower courts, the case turned on the question of whether the ad, which criticized Wirth but did not advocate his electoral defeat, was spending ``in connection with'' a campaign. The high court didn't address that issue.
Rather, its controlling plurality opinion turned on the question of whether the party spending was coordinated with the candidate. Justice Stephen G. Breyer, joined by Justice Sandra Day O'Connor and David H. Souter, said there was no evidence of any coordination, noting that the advertisement ran before the state GOP had even selected its nominee.
The court has ruled previously that it is unconstitutional to impose spending limits on ``independent expenditures'' by groups such as corporate, labor and ideological political action committees. Breyer said it was unfair and unconstitutional to impose more stringent rules on political parties.
``We do not see how a Constitution that grants to individuals, candidates, and ordinary poltical committees the right to make unlimited independent expenditures could deny the same right to political parties,'' he wrote.
Four justices - Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, and Anthony M. Kennedy, Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas - wanted to remove the spending limits on parties even for coordinated expenditures.
Kennedy, in an opinion joined by Rehnquist and Scalia, said restricting party spending in conjunction with candidates violated the parties' constitutional right to express their views. He said, ``It would be impractical and imprudent, to say the least, for a party to support its own candidates without some form of `cooperation' or `consultation.' ''
Thomas agreed, but wrote separately and argued for a wholesale rewriting of the court's approach to campaign finance cases.
Justice John Paul Stevens, joined by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, said spending limits were justified by the need to avoid corruption and ``to protect equal access to the political arena'' by limiting the cost of federal campaigns. MEMO: This story was compiled from reports by The Washington Post, The
Los Angeles Times and The Associated Press.
KEYWORDS: U.S. SUPREME COURT RULING CAMPAIGN
FINANCING CONGRESSIONAL ELECTIONS by CNB