At a time the 2008 presidential candidates and influence-hungry states are already doing a devastating job of damaging the way we nominate and elect our leaders, the Supreme Court has now weighed in with another lethal blow.

The process has already been severely undermined, by the leading candidates rejecting federal campaign subsidies and shooting for the moon in fund-raising, and by states front-loading the 2008 primary calendar in a early rush to judgment.

Now the Court’s 5-4 decision to soften the law intended to curb television attack ads opens wider the ability of special-interest groups to throw big money against candidates who buck issue positions that the groups embrace.

The ruling is a product of President Bush’s two high court appointees whose votes have shifted the previous stand limiting that ability. It invites a much greater flow of so-called issue ads that attack candidates who take, in the view of the advertisers, the “wrong” position on matters of concern to them.

This story continues below
Advertisement

Under a previous provision of the McCain-Feingold campaign finance law, such ads by special- interest groups targeting a candidate by name were prohibited 30 days before a primary election or 60 days before a general election.

The provision was designed as a tougher test for corporations, unions and other groups to meet than an earlier standard, which barred only ads that specifically advocated the election or defeat of a named candidate—dubbed “magic words” in campaign finance reform parlance.

Chief Justice John G. Roberts’ pithy summation of his position—”Where the first amendment is implicated, the tie goes to the speaker, not the censor”—signals a likely later assault on any checks at all on special-interest advertising, almost invariably negative in tone.

While special-interest groups are still prohibited from directly giving unlimited or “soft” campaign money to federal office-seekers, such groups can now more easily buy on their own television and radio ads that benefit the candidates of their choice.

Beyond that, comments by other justices who voted in the majority suggest they would favorably consider going beyond Roberts’ opinion if McCain-Feingold were to come before them again.

Justice Antonin Scalia in a separate opinion said the action just taken “effectively overrules” the earlier 2003 decision placing restrictions on free speech in campaigns. And Justice Sam Alito, the latest Bush addition to the Court, pointedly said he anticipated that he would have another crack at modifying campaign reform “in a future case.”

Meanwhile, the whole process for federal funding of presidential elections lies in shambles. The leading candidates in both parties have already decided to turn down the government money, which is available to candidates who agree to accept limits on how much they can spend.

Their decisions have been driven not only by the need to remain competitive with their opponents but also by the tremendous campaign costs imposed by the bunching together of 20 or more primaries and caucuses in the first five weeks of 2008.

From all indications, the eventual two major-party nominees also will for the first time reject the federal allocation of funds for the general election and raise all they can on their own. If the party nominees are indeed decided in early February, they will have nine months to fatten their campaign treasuries in what undoubtedly will be the most expensive presidential campaign in history.

On top of that, there are now indications that billionaire New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg, who has just shed his Republican Party affiliation, is considering running as an independent using his own wealth.

Even before the Supreme Court’s ruling opening the spigot for much more special-interest dollars flowing into the campaign process, the influence of money had reached new heights.

Pity the relatively underfunded candidates already struggling under low name identification and dismal polling numbers. They may have to rely on the limited federal funding system being so cavalierly abandoned by the early frontrunners raising cash in record amounts.

Jules Witcover, a Baltimore Examiner columnist, is syndicated by Tribune Media Services. He has covered national affairs from Washington for more than 50 years and is the author of 11 books, and co-author of five others, on American politics and history.