The U.S. Supreme Court refused
today to accept review of a
decision of the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
striking down several provisions
of Kentucky election and public
election financing laws. Stumbo,
et al. v. Anderson, et al., No.
04-103, cert. denied, Nov. 1,
2004. The Court denied a writ
of certiorari filed by
Kentucky's Attorney General, who
sought to reverse parts of the
decision of the United States
Court of Appeals for the Sixth
Circuit in Anderson v. Spear,
356 F.3d 651 (6th Cir. 2004).
The case was brought by a
write-in candidate for Kentucky
governor, Hobart Ward Anderson,
and his campaign committee.
They successfully argued in the
Sixth Circuit that Anderson's
constitutional rights to free
speech and association had been
violated by aspects of Kentucky
law. Kentucky then asked the
Supreme Court to review the
Sixth Circuit decision for
striking down Kentucky laws that
prohibited: 1) "electioneering"
within 500 feet of polling
places, 2) receipt of cash
contributions by candidates, 3)
gubernatorial candidates from
loaning more than $50,000 to
their own campaigns, and 4)
write-in candidates from asking
for or receiving contributions
within 28 days of an election.
Now that the Supreme Court has
declined review, the Sixth
Circuit decision stands.
James Bopp, Jr., President of
the Madison Center, said that
the Sixth Circuit decision
"marked an important victory for
free speech and association
rights in the wake of the
decision of the Supreme Court
last summer upholding the
McCain-Feingold federal
campaign finance legislation" in
McConnell v. Federal Election
Comm'n, 124 S. Ct. 619 (2003).
Bopp also noted that, in
striking down the ban on
"electioneering" near polling
places, the Sixth Circuit had
specifically held that the
distinction between expressly
advocating election of a
candidate and advocating to
advance an issue remained alive
in the wake of the Supreme Court
campaign finance decision.
According to Bopp, "Kentucky and
others have claimed that this
distinction between campaigning
for candidates and advocating on
issues was a dead letter after
the Supreme Court's decision in
McConnell. The Sixth Circuit,
and now the Supreme Court, say
they are wrong. People ought to
be able to advocate for issues
that they believe in even when
there may be some legitimate
restrains on campaigning for
particular candidates."