Wisconsin Right to Life, Inc. v. Federal Election Commission
Wisconsin Right to Life (WRTL) sued the Federal Election Commision (FEC), seeking a judgment allowing it to continue broadcasting a series of advertisements and declaring that parts of the Federal Election Campaign Act are unconstitutional as applied to it. WRTL describes itself as a "nonprofit, nonstock, ideological advocacy corporation." In July 2004, WRTL began running a series of advertisements that encouraged viewers to contact Senators Feingold and Kohl (United States senators from Wisconsin) to oppose a filibuster on judicial nominations. The advertisements, which WRTL intended to air until the end of the congressional term in 2004, coincided with Senator Feingold's 2004 re-election campaign. Accordingly, WRTL anticipated that its ads would violate portions of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 (BCRA, also known as McCain-Feingold for its sponsors), which prohibits corporations such as WRTL from using corporate funds to broadcast advertisements targeted at a specific candidate within 60 days of a general election.
A three-judge panel of the district court denied WRTL's motion for preliminary injunctive relief, which would have prevented the FEC from enforcing BCRA in this case. The court held that WRTL could not assert an "as applied" challenged to BCRA after McConnell v. Federal Election Commission, 540 U.S. 93 (2003), in which the Supreme Court considered various facial challenges to the legality of BCRA and upheld its electioneering communication provisions in their entirety.
Questions Presented:
1. Whether as-applied challenges are permitted to the prohibition on corporate disbursements for electioneering communications at 2 U.S.C. § 441b after McConnell v. FEC, 540 U.S. 93 (2003).
2. If so, whether the prohibition on electioneering communications is unconstitutional as applied to the facts of this case, and particularly
a. the three particular grass-roots lobbying broadcast communications sponsored by Wisconsin Right to Life, Inc. here and/or
b. grass-roots lobbying communications generally, as carefully defined,
with any communications to be funded either from a general corporate account or, alternatively, from a separate bank account to which only qualified individuals may donate, as defined in 2 U.S.C. § 434(f)(2)(E).
Decisions under Review: (both decisions were unreported)
District Court of the District of Columbia, May 9, 2005 (dismissing the case)
District Court of the District of Columbia, August 17, 2004 (denying the motion for preliminary injunction)
