PowerMedia

McCain-Feingold.
Reluctant to predict an outcome for McCain-Feingold, Abrams nevertheless observed that proponents of the statute appear to have Justices Ginsburg, John Paul Stevens, Stephen G. Breyer, and David H. Souter in their camp, while opponents can count on Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist and Justices Scalia, Anthony M. Kennedy, and Clarence Thomas.

Because the case law is comprised of closely split opinions, and because the same justices are not always on the same sides, one must be cautious in attempting to predict the outcome of McCain-Feingold, Abrams suggested. What appears clear, however, is that Justice O'Connor's vote is going to be very important, he said.

Numerous parties have challenged the law on First Amendment grounds, including the Wall Street Journal and the Republican Party. The case will be decided during the Supreme Court's 2003-04 term, and is expected to have a major impact on next year's elections.

Much of the Sept. 8 oral argument was devoted to debate about the statutory prohibitions on "soft money"--large donations not previously subject to federal limits--and issue ads, or "electioneering communications," which are broadcast ads that either praise or condemn candidates in upcoming elections without explicitly suggesting how listeners should vote.

According to Abrams, the most "dramatic" moment came during the debate on the law's advertising limits. Defending the law, U.S. Deputy Solicitor General Paul Clement reiterated several times that the high court's ruling in Austin v. Michigan State Chamber of Commerce, 494 U.S. 652 (1990), established that corporations do not have a constitutional right to spend money to help elect candidates. Rehnquist was part of the 5-4 majority in that case, while Scalia and Kennedy issued strong dissents.

In Austin, Abrams said, Rehnquist "denigrated the significance of corporate speech," taking the position that corporations are creatures of the state, and if the state can allow or disallow their existence, it can also permit or not permit certain types of corporate speech, so long as the restrictions are not content-based.

After oral argument, however, Rehnquist had "tipped his hat" at least six times in favor of the First Amendment, Abrams related.

Of significance, he said, was the argument, posited by conservatives, that corporate speech, as a counterbalance to the press, must not be hindered.

To this end, Neuborne said he could "barely restrain himself" when Scalia asked more than once why the press should have privileges that corporations do not. "This from the literalist on the court," Neuborne said, referring to the specific rights afforded the press in the First Amendment.