The Supreme Court limited federal campaign-finance laws by giving corporations, unions and interest groups freedom to run television ads before elections. According to the June 25 ruling, ads cannot be blocked from airing near election time, even if they deal with politically charged issues and may implicitly support one candidate over another. The decision is a departure for the court, which in 2003 restricted pre-election advertising.

Writing for the majority in the 5-4 decision, Justice John Roberts said, “Discussion of issues cannot be suppressed simply because the issue also may be pertinent in an election. Where the First Amendment is implicated, the tie goes to the speaker, not the censor.”

The case arose before Wisconsin's September 2004 primary, when the anti-abortion group Wisconsin Right to Life tried to run ads that urged voters to contact Wisconsin senators Herb Kohl and Russell Feingold to encourage them to oppose a filibuster blocking several of President Bush's federal bench nominees.

At the time, Feingold was running for Senate re-election. Wisconsin Right to Life withdrew the ads when opponents charged they violated McCain-Feingold legislation, which prohibits corporations and labor unions from “electioneering communication” 30 days before a federal primary election and 60 days before a federal general election. “Electioneering communication” includes pre-election ads purchased with a corporation or union's general treasury that mention or target specific candidates.

The court found the Wisconsin Right to Life ads should be exempted from the ban because they're not “the functional equivalent of express advocacy” for or against a specific candidate. To block such ads, the court said, would unreasonably limit First Amendment rights.

The Supreme Court limited federal campaign-finance laws by giving corporations, unions and interest groups freedom to run television ads before elections. According to the June 25 ruling, ads cannot be blocked from airing near election time, even if they deal with politically charged issues and may implicitly support one candidate over another. The decision is a departure for the court, which in 2003 restricted pre-election advertising.

Writing for the majority in the 5-4 decision, Justice John Roberts said, “Discussion of issues cannot be suppressed simply because the issue also may be pertinent in an election. Where the First Amendment is implicated, the tie goes to the speaker, not the censor.”

The case arose before Wisconsin's September 2004 primary, when the anti-abortion group Wisconsin Right to Life tried to run ads that urged voters to contact Wisconsin senators Herb Kohl and Russell Feingold to encourage them to oppose a filibuster blocking several of President Bush's federal bench nominees.

At the time, Feingold was running for Senate re-election. Wisconsin Right to Life withdrew the ads when opponents charged they violated McCain-Feingold legislation, which prohibits corporations and labor unions from “electioneering communication” 30 days before a federal primary election and 60 days before a federal general election. “Electioneering communication” includes pre-election ads purchased with a corporation or union's general treasury that mention or target specific candidates.

The court found the Wisconsin Right to Life ads should be exempted from the ban because they're not “the functional equivalent of express advocacy” for or against a specific candidate. To block such ads, the court said, would unreasonably limit First Amendment rights.