Supreme Court Loosens Limits On Political Ads

By ROBERT BARNES The Washington Post

Published: Jun 26, 2007

WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court on Monday substantially weakened restrictions on the kinds of television ads that corporations and unions can finance in the days before an election, providing special interest groups with the opportunity for a far more expansive role in the 2008 elections.

Chief Justice John Roberts wrote the 5-4 decision, saying the McCain-Feingold campaign finance act's prohibition against the use of a candidate's name in the days before an election was an unconstitutional infringement on the groups' rights to advocate on issues.

"Discussion of issues cannot be suppressed simply because the issues may also be pertinent in an election," Roberts wrote. "Where the First Amendment is implicated, the tie goes to the speaker, not the censor."

It was a rare decision that united the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the AFL-CIO in praise, although it is unlikely the two groups will use the court's more lenient standards to advocate for the same causes.

"This is a big win for big money," League of Women Voters President Mary Wilson said in a statement. "Chief Justice Roberts has reopened the door to corruption."

The decision came on a day that clearly illustrated how the addition of Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito has shifted the balance of a court closely divided on social issues.

The five-member majority that includes Justices Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas and Anthony Kennedy prevailed in each of the closely divided rulings handed down.

The court in those cases restricted student speech rights and ruled that a suit brought by taxpayers against President Bush's office of faith-based initiatives could not go forward.

Roberts took a different view of First Amendment protections in the student speech case, which he also authored.

He said a principal was right to take a student's banner proclaiming "Bong Hits 4 Jesus." Roberts said schools don't have to tolerate speech advocating illegal drug use, and the question "hardly justifies sounding the First Amendment bugle."

The campaign finance case brought another dissent read from the bench by a member of the court's liberal wing - the fourth this year - eager to draw attention to what they say is a majority too willing to jettison the court's past rulings.

"The court (and, I think, the country), loses when important precedent is overruled without good reason, and there is no justification for departure from our usual rule of stare decisis here," Justice David Souter wrote for the other dissenters in the case.

Court Protects Bush's Faith-Based Programs

WASHINGTON - The Bush administration's faith-based initiatives got a boost Monday from the Supreme Court: a ruling that ordinary taxpayers cannot sue to stop conferences that help religious charities apply for federal grants.

President Bush called the 5-4 decision "a substantial victory for efforts by Americans to more effectively aid our neighbors in need of help."

The court blocked a lawsuit by a group of atheists and agnostics against officials including the head of the White House Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives.

The Associated Press

WHAT'S NEXT

The Supreme Court has three cases left to decide for this term. The justices plan to meet again on Thursday.

SCHOOLS-RACE: Whether public schools can take race into account in assigning students to schools. The case was argued on Dec. 4.

DEATH PENALTY-MENTAL ILLNESS: Whether a death row inmate has to understand that his impending execution is the result of the crimes for which he was convicted. The case was argued on April 18.

ANTITRUST: Whether manufacturers and stores can set minimum retail prices for products. The case was argued on March 26.

The Associated Press