LA Times: Liberate Political Speech

I haven't followed the LA Times' editorials on the matter, but I was surprised to read that it supports the grassroots lobbying exemption at issue in Wisconsin Right to Life. Most newspapers have staunchly defended BCRA, and indeed most prior versions of McCain-Feingold legislation through the years.

The question before the Court is whether there are instances when a broadcast ad that mentions a federal candidate close to an election (30 days primary, 60 days general) is consitutionally protected to the extent that federal law cannot force the broadcaster to pay for the ad through a PAC. Wisconsin Right to Life argues that their ad was lobbying... it asked for people to call both Wisconsin Senators and ask them to reject supporting a filibster. Only one, Sen. Feingold ironically, was up for re-election. Under the electioneering communications rules, this is an election ad that must be paid for with "hard money" through a political committee. Any other time of year, this is a lobbying ad that even a public charity 501(c)(3) can run... this is an interesting issue that has sparked a great deal of debate in the election law community. Many reform-oriented minds suggest that Wisconsin Right to Life's success in carving out an exemption would be the first step in the chipping away of this regulation. Opponents suggest that the law was overbroad to begin with, and only these as-applied challenges can bring it back to a consitutional status. To be continued...