Minnesota Law Review

Beyond Incoherence: The Roberts Court’s Deregulatory Turn in FEC v. Wisconsin Right to Life

With the recent personnel changes on the Supreme Court, the pendulum has swung sharply away from deference in campaign finance regulation toward perhaps the greatest period of deregulation since before Congress passed the important 1974 Amendments to the Federal Election Campaign Act. In the 2006 Randall v. Sorrell decision, the Court for the first time struck down individual contribution limits in candidate elections as too low. In 2007’s Federal Election Commission v. Wisconsin Right to Life, Inc. (WRTL II), the Court mostly eviscerated a key aspect of the McCain-Feingold law limiting corporate and union spending in federal elections. More importantly, a new Court majority has signaled its receptivity to many more challenges to campaign finance laws.

As a matter of jurisprudence the Roberts Court’s approach to campaign finance regulation is just as incoherent as the Rehnquist Court’s New Deference approach, though it moves in a decidedly different ideological direction. Likely in an effort to appear moderate or minimalist, Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Alito have made their deregulatory moves without expressly overturning existing precedent, leading Justice Scalia to decry their actions as faux judicial restraint.

Beyond incoherence, the WRTL II principal opinion removes effective limits on corporate and union spending from their general treasury funds in elections. Only ads that expressly advocate the election or defeat of candidates for office and those that are an appeal to vote for or against a specific candidate may not be paid for with these general funds. Although debatable issues of interpretation remain, the new test will not pose a formidable obstacle for those corporations and unions. As a result, we could well see a significant rise in corporate election-related spending. Looking further into the future, following WRTL II, many other campaign finance regulations are likely to be struck down on First Amendment grounds.

:: View PDF

De Novo

  • Case Comment: Bhogaita v. Altamonte

    EVERY DOG CAN HAVE HIS DAY IN COURT: THE USE OF ANIMALS AS DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBITS Kyle R. Kroll, Volume 100, Online Managing Editor In Bhogaita v. Altamonte, the Eleventh Circuit recently decided whether to allow a dog in the courtroom as a demonstrative exhibit.[1] Although the case presented many serious [...]

  • Revisiting Water Bankruptcy

    REVISITING WATER BANKRUPTCY IN CALIFORNIA’S FOURTH YEAR OF DROUGHT Olivia Moe, Volume 100, Managing Editor This spring, as “extreme” to “exceptional” drought stretched across most of California—indicating that a four-year streak of drought was not about to resolve itself[1]—Governor Jerry Brown issued an unprecedented order to reduce potable urban water [...]

  • Defying Auer Deference

    DEFYING AUER DEFERENCE: SKIDMORE AS A SOLUTION TO CONSERVATIVE CONCERNS IN PEREZ v. MORTGAGE BANKERS ASSOCIATION Nicholas R. Bednar, Volume 100, Lead Articles Editor* On March 9, 2015, the Supreme Court of the United States handed down its decision in Perez v. Mortgage Bankers Association.[1] The Court overturned the D.C. [...]