Supreme Court Opinion Cites ACLJ Amicus Brief

I want to take a moment to thank all of you who support the work of the American Center for Law and Justice.  I also want to give you an example of the tremendous impact we are making - this time through our amicus brief filed in one of the key cases decided this week by the Supreme Court of the United States.
 
In its decision in the consolidated cases of  FEC v. Wisconsin Right to Life (No. 06-969) and McCain v. Wisconsin Right to Life (No. 06-970), a majority of the high court concluded that the Wisconsin Right to Life organization should have been permitted to run ads on issues in the weeks leading up to a 2004 election.
 
At issue:  a provision of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 - a troubling provision that in our view restricted free speech and violated the First Amendment rights of those groups and organizations who wanted to speak out about important issues of the day.
 
While the high court stopped short in overturning that provision, it did something very important - it acknowledged that the pro-life speech in this case was wrongfully censored.
 
In our friend-of-the-court brief, we urged the high court to remove the prohibition of grassroots lobbying organizations from taking part in issue advertising 30-days before a primary election and 60-days before a general election.
 
And our brief asserted the following:  Because the business of governing continues, the business of the People, that is, the business of giving instructions to their elected representatives continues.  And, likewise, the business of seeking redress of grievances continues.  When Congress enacted the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002, it acted in derogation of these facts and to the detriment of the right of the people to petition for a redress of grievances through the use of genuine issue advertisements by grassroots lobbying organizations.  The right to petition is fundamental, and warrants this Courts close guardianship.   (You can read the full ACLJ amicus brief here.)
 
In the majority opinion, Chief Justice John Roberts cited the ACLJ amicus brief in reaching the conclusion that the pro-life speech in this case was wrongfully censored.  In a citation on pages 16 and 17 of the brief (click here to read the opinion), Chief Justice Roberts refuted an argument that the Wisconsin Right to Life (WRTL) ads crossed the line.
 
Here is what the Chief Justice wrote:

"Despite these characteristics, appellants assert that the content of WRTLs ads alone betrays their electioneering nature. Indeed, the FEC suggests that any ad covered by 203 that includes 'an appeal to citizens to contact their elected representative' is the 'functional equivalent' of an ad saying defeat or elect that candidate. Brief for Appellant FEC 31; see Brief for Appellant Sen. John McCain et al. in No. 06970, pp. 2123 (hereinafter McCain Brief). 
 
We do not agree.  To take just one example, during a blackout period the House considered the proposed Universal National Service Act. See App. to Brief for American Center for Law and Justice et al. as Amicus Curiae B3.  There would be no reason to regard an ad supporting or opposing that Act, and urging citizens to contact their Representative about it, as the equivalent of an ad saying vote for or against the Representative.  Issue advocacy conveys information and educates.  An issue ads impact on an election, if it exists at all, will come only after the voters hear the information and chooseuninvited by the adto factor it into their voting decisions."

It's an honor and a privilege to have our brief cited in this case.  While in our view, the high court should have gone further by striking down the troubling provision as unconstitutional, this decision clearly represents a severe blow to a provision that amounts to nothing more than censorship.
 
The decision also opens the door to further challenges of these free speech restrictions and represents a First Amendment victory for those who want to express their views on issues that matter most prior to an election.
 
Without your support in standing with the ACLJ, it would be impossible to do our work - and engage issues like campaign finance reform at the Supreme Court of the United States.
 
Thanks for your support.