Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act — U.S. Supreme Court Oral Argument

Michael Harless Election Law

With 12 consolidated cases challenging the constitutionality of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act, and only four appellant lawyers permitted to argue before the U.S. Supreme Court today, we were not permitted to present our case to the Court except through our written briefs.

We were pleased, however, that three of the issues which we litigated were repeatedly addressed during the oral argument in questions posed by the Justices:

  • Unconstitutionality of FECA/BCRA due to Media Exemption
    (see Paul Appellants’ Brief pp. 26, 39, & 48, and Paul Appellants’ Reply Brief pp. 1 & 2)
  • Freedom of the Press
    (see Paul Appellants’ Brief pp. 16-44, and Paul Appellants’ Reply Brief pp. 3-6)
  • Inappropriateness of Judiciary Deferring to Congress in a Matter of Self-interest (i.e., re-election)
    (see Paul Appellants’ Brief pp. 6-16, and Paul Appellants’ Reply Brief pp. 5-8)