Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act

Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act

Primary Sources

Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002, Public Law 107-155, March 27, 2002.

BCRA, also known as the McCain-Feingold Act, was enacted in 2002. The act sought to curb the role of “soft money” by prohibiting national political party committees from raising or spending funds not subject to federal limitations. BCRA also included attempts to decrease “issue ads” that mention federal candidates up to 60 days before a general election.

Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1 (1976).

The Buckley case upheld the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 (FECA, Pub. L. 92-225), amended in 1974, which set limits on individual campaign contributions, but ruled that spending money to influence election results is a form of constitutionally protected free speech. The Buckley case struck down certain portions of FECA. The Court also affirmed that candidates can give unlimited amounts of money to their own campaigns.

Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, 558 U.S. 50 (2010).

The U.S. Supreme Court held that the First Amendment protects corporate funding of independent political broadcasts in candidate elections. The Court had previously ruled that BCRA’s limitations on corporate funding of political broadcasts did not violate the First Amendment. The decision was 5 to 4.

Federal Election Campaign Laws, Federal Election Commission, April 2008.

Comprehensive compilationof federal election campaign laws.

Key Supreme Court Campaign Finance Cases since the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (2002)

The three major U.S. Supreme Court cases decided since the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 are summarized here including case name and citation, vote, constitutional questions and outcome. The cases are presented in a matrix that allows for easy comparison among the three cases.

McConnell v. Federal Election Commission, 540 U.S. 93 (2003)

McConnell v. FECupheld most of the McCain-Feingold Act (BCRA) in a 5 to 4 decision. The case was filed by U.S. Senator Addison Mitchell “Mitch” McConnell (R-KY, 1985-present), the California Democratic Party and the National Rifle Association. The core case argument was that McCain-Feingold violated the First Amendment. The Court upheld key BCRA provisions such as the “electioneering communication” provision and the ban on “soft money.”

Federal Election Commission v. Wisconsin Right to Life, Inc., 551 U.S. 449 (2007)

FEC v. Wisconsin Right to Life created an exception to the limitations on broadcast advertisements within 30 days of a primary or 60 days of a general election. The Court ruled that, unless an advertisement could not reasonably be interpreted as anything other than advocacyon behalf of, or for the defeat of, a candidate, it was eligible for an “as applied” exemption to the McCain-Feingold limits on issue advertisementsbroadcast close to an election. The case was decided 5 to 4.