Justices to review political party spending limits

Tuesday, Oct. 10, 2000 | 11:18 a.m.

SUN STAFF AND WIRE REPORTS

WASHINGTON -- The Supreme Court agreed today to take a case that would decide whether to remove limits on spending by political parties that are coordinating a campaign with a particular candidate.

At a time when many politicians are screaming for more spending limits -- not less -- lawmakers and fund-raisers will be closely watching the case that could have huge implications for campaign fund-raising in America.

"I think it's wonderful the Supreme Court is taking the case," said Sen. Harry Reid, a powerful fund-raiser but also an advocate of campaign finance reform.

"I hope the court rules to limit spending," Reid said today. "Any limits that would cut down on money in races are important. Money has to become less important in races, not more important."

Currently, political parties must limit the amount of money they spend on a candidate if the parties are coordinating campaign efforts with the candidate -- collaborating for a television commercial, for example.

Parties can spend unlimited money if the party and candidate do not work together on a campaign effort.

This year the Colorado Republican Party went after the limits on coordinated campaigns, appealing to the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

The Colorado Republican Party argued in court papers that the limits are an unfair infringement on the First Amendment right to free speech and should be scrapped nationwide. The appeals court effectively agreed and struck down federal limits on how much money parties can spend on activities that are coordinated with candidates but still separate from the candidates' campaign coffers.

But the Federal Election Commission and the Justice Department disagree with the ruling. The agencies argue in court papers that candidates would know where huge influxes of "coordinated expenditures" came from, and once in office might feel beholden to individual party officials.

Now it will be up to the Supreme Court to rule in the case. It was not immediately clear when the Supreme Court would decide the matter.

Nevada's House members could not be reached for comment this morning.

"It's fair to say the Congresswoman is supportive of the court's decision to review campaign finance law," said Michael O'Donovan, spokesman for Rep. Shelley Berkley, D-Nev. "She has consistently been a strong supporters of Congressional orders that restrict soft money and improve disclosure laws."

A spokeswoman for Rep. Jim Gibbons, R-Nev., said the Congressman likely would not have a comment pending the case's outcome.

In other rulings today, the court:

Agreed to clarify how long the government can lock up aliens who have been ordered deported, when the deportation cannot immediately be carried out.

Refused to restore valuable broadcast licenses to a wireless communications firm that lost them because it missed payment deadlines.

Asked Justice Department lawyers to file a brief commenting on the Clinton administration's views on a dispute in which a copy-machine repair company accuses Xerox Corp. of illegally trying to monopolize the repair market.