Justices Lift Restriction on Political Parties’ Spending

Cutting a gaping hole in federal election laws, the Supreme Court on Wednesday gave the nation’s political parties a free-speech right to spend vast amounts of money to promote their views and their candidates.

The 7-2 decision strikes down a limit on party spending that was enacted 22 years ago after the Watergate scandal. Too much money flowing into politics causes corruption, Congress said then.

But the Supreme Court, looking for the first time at this section of the law, said parties are organized to spread their views, and the Constitution protects their free-speech right to say as they please.

“The independent expression of a political party’s views is core 1st Amendment activity,” wrote Justice Stephen G. Breyer.

Proponents of the decision said it has the potential to revive parties as a powerful force in American politics. Critics said it will only put more focus on fund-raising in a system already awash in campaign cash.

The court ruling came one day after the Senate blocked action on a new campaign spending law.

While political experts agreed the decision will be significant in the coming years, most said they doubted it will have much effect this year. That is because the decision did not strike down the limits on so-called “coordinated expenditures” between candidates and their parties. Most state and national parties have already “coordinated” their campaigns with a particular candidate this year.

Moreover, contribution limits remain in force. Individuals may give no more $5,000 per year to a party.

But many state parties now raise far more than they can spend under the limits set by the Federal Election Commission. Under Wednesday’s decision, they are free to run ads, send mail or do other promotions that tout their party’s views, independently support their candidate or criticize the opposition.

The only restriction, and that too looks shaky, comes if the party works together with a candidate to coordinate a message.

Four members of the court--Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist and Justices Antonin Scalia, Anthony M. Kennedy and Clarence Thomas--said they would strike down that restriction too. Three others--Breyer, Sandra Day O’Connor and David H. Souter--spoke in favor of the free-speech principle but said they would defer a ruling on “coordinated expenditures” until the issue was raised directly in a case.

The case began in 1986 when the FEC fined the Colorado Republican Party for having run a $15,000 radio spot criticizing then-Rep. Timothy E. Wirth, a Democrat.

Each election cycle, the FEC sets state-by-state limits on party spending that come from a formula based on population. To make matters more complicated, the state parties can turn over their allotments to the national party.

The Colorado Republicans had assigned their $103,000 spending limit to the National Republican Senatorial Committee. When the Democrats complained, the FEC said the $15,000 radio ads pushed the Republicans over their annual limit.

A federal appeals court in Denver upheld the fine, but Republican lawyers appealed to the Supreme Court on 1st Amendment grounds.

Only Justices John Paul Stevens and Ruth Bader Ginsburg dissented in Colorado Republicans vs. FEC, 95-489. “The government has an important interest in leveling the electoral playing field by constraining the cost of campaigns,” Stevens wrote.

Republican campaign officials said they were jubilant, but Democrats had a lukewarm response.

“Today’s decision is a step in the right direction toward a truly free and open political debate, paving the way for removal of all legal barriers to expression by the political parties,” said Republican National Committee Chairman Haley Barbour.

“We are prepared to take full advantage of our dominant financial position,” said John Heubusch, executive director of the National Republican Senatorial Committee. “Besides the record number of open Democratic Senate seats, today’s ruling is one of the most significant political developments of 1996, and clearly works to our advantage.”

By contrast, Democratic National Committee Chairman Donald L. Fowler noted that the decision did not strike down all limits. It “does not affect what the political parties have been doing, can continue to do, when we coordinate with our candidates,” he said.

The ruling may accelerate a trend to more negative advertising against incumbents because such attacks, especially in a non-election year before a party has a candidate, would likely qualify as independent expenditures. But as a practical matter, it may be harder for parties to spend vast new sums of money at the point when they need it the most--in coordination with a candidate just before election day.

* INJURY CASES: Court deals setback to medical device makers. D1