The question of whether the new federal campaign finance law violates First Amendment rights will be debated before three federal judges today.
The law, championed by U.S. Senators John McCain, R-AZ and Russ Feingold, D-WI prohibits national political parties from receiving or spending unregulated soft money from labor unions, corporations, other organizations or wealthy individuals.
According to David Canon, a UW-Madison political science professor, the law also prohibits the broadcast of ads focusing on campaign issues shortly before elections, making the law vulnerable to violating the Constitution. Opponents of the law feel issue advocacy groups are censored, he said.
\The other parts of the law are more likely to survive,"" Canon said. He also said the rest of the law was intended to survive even if parts pertaining to the issue advocacy ads were found unconstitutional.
Gordon Baldwin, a UW-Madison professor emeritus of law, said previous courts decided campaign contributions could be limited and must be publicized. He said the courts interpret spending money as protected speech.
""It's an arguable premise but that's the one the court has taken,"" Baldwin said.
Canon said the Supreme Court could decide sometime next year whether equal campaign financing overrides concerns of violating First Amendment speech rights.
""Most see soft money as being a major risk of corruption in elections,"" Canon said. ""The court will probably uphold soft money bans.""
Kevin Sheridan, a spokesperson for the Republican National Committee, said while the court may rule the law unconstitutional on First Amendment grounds, it also harms political parties.
""You're not taking money out of politics, you are re-directing it. Now we're stuck trying to make a bad bill better through the courts,"" Sheridan said. ""The law poses restrictions on political parties and gives special interest groups advantages.""
Sheridan said the law harmed political parties' abilities to run campaigns educating voters, among other positive efforts sponsored by political parties.
On the positive side, the law increased the amount of hard money, money given directly to candidates that can be raised, to match inflation, Sheridan said.
While Sheridan said the RNC found flaws in the law, the Democratic National Committee supported it according to Maria Cordona, a DNC spokesperson, adding law enables more people to influence national politics.
""When you take money out of politics and bring politics back to the people it empowers more people, not just the wealthy and corporations,"" Cordona said. ""It makes the parties focus reaching out to more individuals and that's a good thing.""
