• The Heritage Network
    • Resize:
    • A
    • A
    • A
  • Donate
  • Go Bopp!!

    Campaign finance warrior James Bopp, who has been involved in numerous fights to protect First Amendment rights to engage in political speech and political activity, is the lead lawyer in two new lawsuits filed against the McCain-Feingold law – the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 (“BCRA”). Bopp won a significant victory last year in FEC v. Wisconsin Right to Life, 127 S.Ct. 2652 (2007), when he convinced the Supreme Court to declare that sections of BCRA were unconstitutional as applied where they prohibited a pro-life organization from running issues ads concerning the filibustering of judicial nominees within 30 days of a primary election and sixty days of a general election.

    In the latest lawsuits, Bopp is representing the Republican National Committee as well as the California and Louisiana state party committees. The RNC is challenging the ban on national political parties raising and spending money for state elections and state candidates that are outside of the federal limits and restrictions of BCRA, as well as the limits on how much money national political parties can spend helping their candidates when those funds are “coordinated” with the candidates.

    In RNC and California Republican Party v. FEC, Bopp is arguing that 2 U.S.C. §441i’s prohibitions on soliciting, receiving and spending funds not subject to the limitations of BCRA are unconstitutional when applied to the party’s plans to raise and spend money on state candidates in elections in 2009 in New Jersey and Virginia, when there will be no federal candidates on the ballots. He is also calling into question their application to RNC plans to raise and spend money on redistricting after the 2010 Census, on grassroots lobbying on issues and legislation important to the Republican Party’s platform, and on paying for the litigation itself. The key to all of these challenges is that none of these activities are “unambiguously related to the campaign of a particular federal candidate.” Thus, they are beyond the power of Congress to regulate federal elections and are a violation of the First Amendment guarantees of free speech and association.

    In Joseph Cao, RNC, and Republican Party of Louisiana v. FEC, Bopp is arguing that the limits in 2 U.S.C. §441a on coordinated spending between a candidate and his political party are unconstitutional when applied to the RNC because they severely limit the ability of political parties to work with and support their candidates. Cao is the Republican candidate scheduled to compete in the December 6 general election against the winner of the Democratic Party runoff election between Congressman William Jefferson and former TV anchor Helena Moreno. The RNC has already spent the maximum $42,100 allowed in Louisiana on helping Cao in his election, and claims that such a limit is unconstitutional when applied to issue advocacy, grassroots lobbying, general public communications, and non-targeted voter registration and get-out-the-vote activity. Because these activities are also not “unambiguously campaign related,” they are a violation of the party’s associational rights.

    Both of these lawsuits challenge some of the most questionable provisions of BCRA. It is the restrictions on so-called “soft money” fundraising that have weakened the parties and led to the huge growth in 527 organizations. The restrictions on the ability of political parties to participate in state elections have always been a severe over-extension of federal law into state activities. As long as national parties are abiding by state campaign finance laws in state elections, it is frankly no business of the federal government, the FEC or Congress how they raise and spend that money. And the restrictions on the ability of political parties to support their own candidates has always seemed a particularly misguided provision to me – helping their candidates is the very essence of the political party system that we have and it is something we should encourage, not discourage as the BCRA statute does.

    Whether you are a Republican, a Democrat, a Libertarian or a Green Party-er, we should all wish James Bopp good luck and good hunting in these suits. If he is successful, then we will have had some of our First Amendment rights that were stolen by BCRA restored to us.

    Posted in Legal [slideshow_deploy]

    7 Responses to Go Bopp!!

    1. Pingback: Go Bopp!!

    2. Pingback: Go Bopp!!

    3. Davis, Kansas says:

      Although the BCRA may seem to some to be limiting free speech, it may not be as suppressive as it seems. What really is to be gained if both parties are simply allowed to spend more money? Does the public learn new information? Are the candidates necessarily more free to express themselves? No. Candidates and now national parties will simply outspend themselves in attempt to reach an apathtic public.

      I truly believe in freedom of speech, I just do not feel that the right for national organizations to throw money into the wind is a worthy fight. The cost associated with elections, elections reform, elections oversight, etc… is far too large already.

    4. Barb -mn says:

      Thank you Mr. James Bopp. It is wrong to lose what is free. We greatly appreciate your efforts in this matter. And the hard work you sustain. If only more people knew what freedom and the responsibilities to it is and allow and respect it without interference, this country would stand proud again. Thank you.

    5. Pingback: Go Bopp!! « Conservative Thoughts and Profundity

    6. PApolitico, DC says:

      Kudos to Jim Bopp. We should be terrified about what kind of judges President-elect Obama will be appointing not only to the Supreme Court but also to district courts. Not to mention heads of federal agencies (like the FEC). I think Mr. Bopp and others see that we have a very small window of time to reverse bad laws like BCRA and the McConnell decision. Now is the time to act before we lose even more freedoms.

    7. Pingback: Go Bopp!! » The Foundry

    Comments are subject to approval and moderation. We remind everyone that The Heritage Foundation promotes a civil society where ideas and debate flourish. Please be respectful of each other and the subjects of any criticism. While we may not always agree on policy, we should all agree that being appropriately informed is everyone's intention visiting this site. Profanity, lewdness, personal attacks, and other forms of incivility will not be tolerated. Please keep your thoughts brief and avoid ALL CAPS. While we respect your first amendment rights, we are obligated to our readers to maintain these standards. Thanks for joining the conversation.

    Big Government Is NOT the Answer

    Your tax dollars are being spent on programs that we really don't need.

    I Agree I Disagree ×

    Get Heritage In Your Inbox — FREE!

    Heritage Foundation e-mails keep you updated on the ongoing policy battles in Washington and around the country.