Competing visions of the role of money in American politics are at the center of a showdown over campaign-finance reform at the US Supreme Court Monday.

On one side are campaign-finance reform advocates who view the influx of hundreds of millions of dollars in unregulated "soft money" into the election system as a corrupting influence upon the democratic process. On the other side, free-speech advocates say money is a means of ensuring that one's voice may be heard on matters of important national debate. Attempts to muzzle election-related speech undermine, rather than enhance, democracy, they say.

The case has all the markings of a potential landmark. The high court agreed to a special four hours of oral argument, to take place in the midst of its summer recess. Virtually every significant campaign-finance lawyer is involved. Twenty-two friend-of-the-court briefs have been filed.

In addition, the case comes only 14 months before the next presidential election, setting the stage for potential mid-campaign chaos depending on the timing and extent of the court's ruling.

"It is shaping up to be the most important campaign-finance case since Buckley v. Valeo," says Richard Hasen, an election-law expert and professor at Loyola Law School in Los Angeles, referring to the 1976 precedent that upheld campaign contribution limits but struck down spending limits.

The justices are set to examine whether Congress overstepped its powers under the Constitution when it enacted the McCain-Feingold campaign-finance reform law last year.

The law, also known as the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002, bans the use of so-called soft money - unlimited donations to the political parties from corporations, unions, and wealthy special interests to influence the outcome of federal elections. It also restricts independent "issue" advertisements broadcast during election season.

More than 80 individuals and groups - including both major political parties - filed suit seeking to overturn the law. An array of reform advocates urged that it be upheld. A federal court panel in May upheld parts of the law and struck down others. But that decision has been stayed - allowing the law to remain in full effect pending Supreme Court review.

It is now up to the nine Supreme Court justices to settle the issue. However the case is resolved, the result will have a profound impact on how federal campaigns will be run and financed.

Analysts say the court itself is split on the issue. They say decisive swing votes could come from Chief Justice William Rehnquist and/or Justice Sandra Day O'Connor.

Campaign-finance reform supporters have long argued that large soft-money contributions undermine public confidence in the election process by giving the impression that wealthy special interests are buying influence. "Congress has the undoubted power and responsibility to safeguard the integrity of federal elections and to prevent actual or apparent corruption of federal office holders," says Solicitor General Theodore Olson in his brief to the court urging the law be upheld.

Page: 1 | 2