{
  "id": "RS22687",
  "type": "CRS Report",
  "typeId": "REPORTS",
  "number": "RS22687",
  "active": false,
  "source": "EveryCRSReport.com, University of North Texas Libraries Government Documents Department",
  "versions": [
    {
      "source": "EveryCRSReport.com",
      "id": 355026,
      "date": "2010-01-08",
      "retrieved": "2016-04-07T02:05:16.053384",
      "title": "The Constitutionality of Regulating Political Advertisements: An Analysis of Federal Election Commission v. Wisconsin Right to Life, Inc.",
      "summary": "Voting 5-4, the U.S. Supreme Court in the 2007 decision FEC v. Wisconsin Right to Life, Inc. (WRTL II) held that a provision of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 (BCRA), prohibiting corporate or labor union treasury funds from being spent on advertisements broadcast within 30 days of a primary or 60 days of a general election, was unconstitutional as applied to ads that Wisconsin Right to Life, Inc. sought to run. While not expressly overruling its 2003 ruling in McConnell v. FEC, which upheld the BCRA provision against a First Amendment facial challenge, the Court limited the law\u2019s application. Specifically, it ruled that advertisements that may reasonably be interpreted as something other than as an appeal to vote for or against a specific candidate are not the functional equivalent of express advocacy and, therefore, cannot be regulated.\nIn a case currently pending before the Supreme Court, Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission (FEC), the constitutionality of the BCRA \u201celectioneering communication\u201d provision is once again under consideration. On March 24, 2009, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in this case and again on September 9, after ordering the parties to file supplemental briefs addressing whether the Court should overrule its earlier holdings in Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce and the portion of its decision in McConnell v. FEC addressing the facial validity of Section 203 of BCRA, the \u201celectioneering communication\u201d prohibition. A decision in this case is expected in early 2010.",
      "type": "CRS Report",
      "typeId": "REPORTS",
      "active": false,
      "formats": [
        {
          "format": "HTML",
          "encoding": "utf-8",
          "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/RS22687",
          "sha1": "d03512ef2bb34831a09eff34b6cfa08e31cf9654",
          "filename": "files/20100108_RS22687_d03512ef2bb34831a09eff34b6cfa08e31cf9654.html",
          "images": null
        },
        {
          "format": "PDF",
          "encoding": null,
          "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/pdf/RS22687",
          "sha1": "511e1df9ea022a1260bc6e009a57ec703a498c8e",
          "filename": "files/20100108_RS22687_511e1df9ea022a1260bc6e009a57ec703a498c8e.pdf",
          "images": null
        }
      ],
      "topics": []
    },
    {
      "source": "University of North Texas Libraries Government Documents Department",
      "sourceLink": "https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc820517/",
      "id": "RS22687_2007Jul05",
      "date": "2007-07-05",
      "retrieved": "2016-03-19T13:57:26",
      "title": "The Constitutionality of Regulating Political Advertisements: An Analysis of Federal Election Commission v. Wisconsin Right to Life, Inc.",
      "summary": null,
      "type": "CRS Report",
      "typeId": "REPORT",
      "active": false,
      "formats": [
        {
          "format": "PDF",
          "filename": "files/20070705_RS22687_d6db3570b75570aac07a52e84a3b8fa1498025cc.pdf"
        },
        {
          "format": "HTML",
          "filename": "files/20070705_RS22687_d6db3570b75570aac07a52e84a3b8fa1498025cc.html"
        }
      ],
      "topics": []
    }
  ],
  "topics": [
    "Constitutional Questions"
  ]
}