WRTL Spin Is In

Following the decision in the Wisconsin Right to Life case, the campaign finance reform community spent a few hours analyzing the decision. Seeing nothing, they took the same track as Sen. John McCain--don't talk about the actual decision, but rather talk about someting not even at stake in the case--the soft money ban. Here is Democracy 21's reaction:

The Supreme Court decision today in FEC v. Wisconsin Right to Life (WRTL) represents a significant step backwards for the American people in the battle to protect against the corruption of our democracy.

Despite the decision, however, it is important to keep in mind that the court ruling in no way affects the ban on soft money in the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 (BCRA), which is the core provision of this statute.

Here is the Campaign Legal Center reaction:

It is important to note that the Court's decision has no impact on BCRA's central provision banning the solicitation of soft money contributions by federal officeholders.

In case you didn't get the message, Senator McCain said:

“It is regrettable that a split Supreme Court has carved out a narrow exception by which some corporate and labor expenditures can be used to target a federal candidate in the days and weeks before an election,” McCain said. “It is important to recognize, however, that the Court’s decision does not affect the principal provision of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act, which bans federal officeholders from soliciting soft money contributions for their parties to spend on their campaigns.”

Sen. Feingold's press statement:

“While I am disappointed in today’s ruling in the Wisconsin Right to Life case, it does not affect the Court’s decision four years ago in McConnell v. FEC that banning unlimited "soft money" contributions to the political parties is fully constitutional. The new decision also does not overturn the McConnell ruling that the issue ad provision of the McCain-Feingold law is constitutional."

There is already debate on that last point by Sen. Feingold, but in all teh comments on the decision, not one noted that the case was about free speech or electioneering communications.

Spin, Spin, Spin.