U.S. Supreme Court to hear "527" cases -

The Supreme Court agrees to hear "issue-ad" cases in anticipation of the 2008 Presidential Election.

This is a big deal. Issue-ads and the supposed "527s" went wild in the 2004 Presidential Elections. They were basically unchecked and were free to spend as much money as they want, while being held to a "zero accountability" standard for the content of their commercials.

What is a 527 you might ask? An easy answer is provided by our friends at Wikipedia:

A 527 group is a type of tax-exempt organization named after a section of the United States tax code, created primarily to influence the nomination, election, appointment or defeat of candidates for public office. Although candidate committees and political action committees are also created under Section 527 of the Internal Revenue Code, the term is generally used to refer to political organizations which are not regulated by the Federal Election Commission or a state elections commission and not subject to the same contribution limits as PACs.

The question for the high court is whether issue ads aired mainly on television -- and funded by businesses, labor unions, and other groups -- can be banned 60 days before a general election, and 30 days before a primary.

The two cases being looked at by the U.S. Supreme Court are FEC v. Wisconsin Right to Life (06-969) and McCain v. Wisconsin Right to Life (06-970).

The issue arose with the passing of The Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 (BCRA), §203, 116 Stat. 91, which prohibits corporations from using their general treasury funds to pay for any "electioneering communications." The BCRA section defines "electioneering communications" as any broadcast, cable, or satellite communication that refers to a candidate for federal office and that is broadcast within 30 days of a federal primary election or 60 days of a federal general election in the jurisdiction in which that candidate is running for office.

By its own language, the BCRA was designed "to purge national politics of what [is] conceived to be the pernicious influence of 'big money' campaign contributions." There can be a mutual agreement in this country, by both sides of the aisle that, while the merits of these numerous groups may be correct and their intentions genuine, they fall outside the bounds of acceptable campaign spending. They create an enormous loophole to current Federal Election law by allowing a few wealthy investors (people and corporations) to greatly direct the national attitude in elections.

Its laughable that these groups contend their actions are the "essence" of grass-roots politics.

There are, of course, 1st Amendment issues here when limiting speech, but the rights afforded to us by the Constitution are not (nor were they intended to be ) absolute. That is one reason it is illegal to scream "fire" in a crowded auditorium. There are compelling public interests that must be protected, and one of the paramount interest our society must protect is the sanctity of our election process. These groups are given a voice other methods of conveying their message (i.e. the internet, townhall meetings, door-to-door campaigning). They don't need these inflammatory commercials, meant only to divide our nation with fear and hatred.

Oral arguments are scheduled for April, with a decision expected in June. I don't know what the court will do with this issue, but I hope they find a way to preserve the integrity of our population-driven government, and will stop the sale of American interests to the highest bidder.

Stay Tuned...