‘Pulling back’ on campaign finance

Less than two weeks after the U.S. Supreme Court hinted it may come down on the side of free speech in a closely watched campaign finance reform case, a federal appeals court has done precisely that.

The U.S. Court of Appeals in Washington this week struck down rules designed to limit campaign spending by independent advocacy groups.

The case involved Emily's List, a liberal group that backs female Democratic candidates who favor abortion rights. The group sued the Federal Election Commission over regulations enacted in 2005 that restricted the ability of nonprofits to pay for political activities.

"The First Amendment, as interpreted by the Supreme Court, protects the right of individual citizens to spend unlimited amounts to express their views about policy issues and candidates for public office," Judge Brett Kavanaugh wrote in siding with Emily's List.

The First Amendment also "safeguards the right of citizens to band together and pool their resources as an unincorporated group or nonprofit organization in order to express their views about policy issues and candidates for public office."

Indeed.

The decision comes on the heels of this month's rare Supreme Court re-hearing of a campaign finance case involving the government's right to ban a politically tinged movie from being aired just prior to a presidential primary.

Both of these cases highlight how restricting political spending in the name of "good government" or "election reform" too often runs counter to the Bill of Rights. "Congress shall make no law ... " and all that.

"Overall the courts are pulling back on the campaign finance laws, and after all the dust settles we'll have to see what the system looks like," Larry Noble, a former attorney for the FEC, told The Associated Press. "The question is: Will Congress do anything about it?"

No, the question is: Will Congress finally abide by the Constitution and stop protecting incumbents by trying to "do something" about unfettered political speech?