Posted October 31, 2008 by Paul S. Ryan

Bopp Buzzer Beater Rejected

The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina Wednesday denied election lawyer Jim Bopp's latest attempt to halt the enforcement of federal campaign finance laws at the height of the presidential campaign in Koerber v. FEC.  In violation of existing campaign finance law, one of the television ads began airing in battleground states earlier this month, days before the case was filed.  The controversial ad by Committee for Truth in Politics attacks Democratic presidential nominee Senator Barack Obama’s record on abortion.  The Campaign Legal Center, together with Democracy 21, filed an amici brief in the case earlier this month supporting the FEC.

Plaintiffs challenged the constitutionality of federal disclosure requirements for broadcast ads that are "electioneering communications," and also challenged the policies of the FEC relating to when a group becomes a "political committee." Both challenges were brought in the context of television ads that plaintiffs acknowledge constitute "electioneering communications" under federal law.  Plaintiffs further acknowledge that they have violated federal law by failing to file the required disclosure reports.

The federal court today correctly recognized the constitutionality of the challenged provisions, refusing to suspend enforcement of these vital campaign finance laws in the last days of the presidential election campaign.  Just as other federal courts have concluded in recent lawsuits brought by Mr. Bopp, this court recognized that the challenged disclosure provisions were resoundingly upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court in its 2003 McConnell decision.

The Legal Center in its brief alerted the court to the fact that arguments being advanced in this case have been soundly rejected by other federal courts in recent months in Citizens United v. FEC, Ohio Right to Life Society, Inc. v. Ohio Elections Commission and The Real Truth Against Obama v. FEC—and are pleased that the court in this case likewise rejected the claims.

To view the decision click here.