Decline and Fall? The Roberts Court and the Challenges to Campaign Finance Law

The Supreme Court has had a major impact on the development of campaign finance law. Court decisions have barred most expenditure limits, upheld contribution restrictions and disclosure requirements, and limited the kinds of electoral ads that can be subject to regulation. In the McConnell decision in 2003 the Court demonstrated a greater openness to campaign finance regulation when it upheld McCain-Feingold's soft money and issue advocacy restrictions. Since McConnell, however, the composition of the Court has changed, and in two decisions in the past two years, the new majority has been much more hostile to campaign finance limits. In particular, last year's WRTL decision significantly eroded McConnell's issue advocacy holding and opened the door to considerably more corporate and union spending in elections. Three new cases are currently moving through the judicial system, with one soon to be argued before the Supreme Court, a second pending there, and a third in the early stages of litigation. These cases have implications for contribution limits, public funding, and the fundraising restrictions and disclosure requirements that apply to independent committees. Their resolution will shape the effectiveness of current campaign law and signal the direction of the Roberts' Court's emerging campaign finance jurisprudence.