| 1 | | 1,600 pages of confusion | | It's been 14 months since Congress approved a new law regulating political campaigns, political fundraising, and political advertising. A special appeals court spent the last five months trying to decide whether that raft of new regulations violated anyone's free-speech rights-and last week, the court reached a decision. Problem is, no one quite knows what exactly the three-judge tribunal held, let alone how to follow the court's order. So complicated was the task that the court, among its more than 1,600 pages of legal opinion, issued a four-page spreadsheet to summarize its 20-part decision. One of the judges complained in a footnote that another judge's reasoning was so faulty, she was left with "the definite and firm opinion that a mistake has been committed." The court confused not only lawyers on both sides of the issue, but political pros and pundits who eat, breathe, and sleep campaign regulations, and even one member of the Federal Election Commission, whose task is to enforce the law. All the parties agree on this: It's going to take the Supreme Court to clarify things before the 2004 election. Bottom line: The court left intact a provision of the law barring activist groups, unions, and corporations from using their own money to purchase advertising that targets specific candidates for public office. That's the provision that groups like the National Right to Life Committee fought so vigorously and will ask the Supreme Court to strike down. | |
Comments
You must be a WORLD print, online, or iPad subscriber to post comments.