WASHINGTON, May 13 (UPI) -- The Supreme Court Tuesday rejected a request from the National Rifle Association to block a lower-court ruling that bans the use of corporate or union general treasury funds for broadcast political advertisements.
The lower-court ruling was part of a larger decision that struck down the main provisions of the federal ban on soft money in federal elections.
The high court order Tuesday by Chief Justice William Rehnquist, who oversees the Washington federal courts and acted on his own, was issued "without prejudice" and is not an indication on how the full court may eventually rule in the case.
The NRA and other plaintiffs, as well as the Justice Department, which is defending the ban, also have asked the lower court to stay its own ruling.
Those requests are still pending before the lower court. If the lower court rejects the stay requests, both sides in the case can still ask the Supreme Court for a stay.
The May 2 decision by a special three-judge trial panel upheld some parts of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act, better known as the McCain-Feingold law, including the provision that the NRA wanted to block.
The NRA was one of a number of organizations that successfully challenged the ban on soft money. But both opponents and supporters of the BCRA have indicated they will ask the Supreme Court to hear an expedited, or fast-track, appeal.
The NRA filing said the organization was asking for Supreme Court intervention -- though such requests are usually sought only after the lower court has refused a stay -- because the three-judge panel made its ruling effective immediately.
The NRA said that meant it could not influence congressional action on pending gun control laws.
The panel's ruling upholds a ban on the use of corporate or union general treasury funds for "electioneering communications."
In terms of the law, "electioneering communications" are broadcast, cable or satellite communications which clearly refer to a federal candidate; are made within 60 days of an election, convention or caucus; or, in the case of a candidate other than president or vice president, are targeted to a particular electorate.
Last Friday, the federal government asked the three-judge panel to temporarily block its whole decision.
The government said a lower-court stay is necessary to prevent confusion until the Supreme Court hears the case on appeal and issues its final ruling.
Allowing "the decision in this case to go into effect during an appeal would have tumultuous consequences for the nation's federal electoral system," the government said in its filing to the three-judge court.
"Soft money" has no limits, is largely unregulated and is supposed to be used in "party-building" activities such as registration drives, but cannot be used directly in an election.
In contrast, "hard money" contributions have low caps and are strictly regulated, but can be used directly in a federal election.
Congress enacted the 2002 Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act because the major parties had become particularly skillful in blurring the lines between the uses of hard and soft money.
Before the ban went into effect last November, political committees, corporations, unions and special-interest groups had used millions of dollars in soft money to influence elections.
The ban was immediately challenged by a number of groups across a wide political spectrum, and 11 of the challenges, including the NRA's, were consolidated into one case heard by the special three-judge trial court.
On May 2, the deeply divided trial court struck down the core provisions of the ban, but upheld some of the peripheral provisions, including the one objected to by the NRA.
The court also ordered the federal government not to enforce any part of the law declared unconstitutional.
(Application No. 02-951, NRA et al. vs. FEC et al.)
