Unfortunately as we have witnessed during previous elections, many can go to great lengths to intimidate voters, hoping to influence the election in a certain way. Those carrying out deceptive and harassing measures have gone unpunished. Senators Obama and Schumer introduced a bill today that would make such activity a federal crime. An editorial in today's New York Times praises their efforts and outlines the bill's implications.

It makes it a crime to knowingly tell voters the wrong day for an election. There have been numerous reports of organized efforts to use telephones, leaflets or posters to tell voters, especially in minority areas, not to vote on Election Day because voting has been postponed. The bill would also criminalize making false claims to voters about who has endorsed a candidate, or wrongly telling people — like immigrants who are registered voters in Orange County — that they cannot vote.

This LA Times editorial asserts that the Supreme Court should rule that the group Wisconsin Right to Life (WRTL) was deprived of their free speech rights after being prohibited from airing certain ads before the 2004 election. The editorial suggests that Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. may change the 2003 Supreme Court decision that upheld the ban on electioneering communications ban, giving political speech "breathing room."

An advertisement praising or criticizing a politician — even one seeking reelection — has more in common with the endorsement editorials that appear on this page than it does with the campaign contributions (in hard or soft dollars) that have received only minimal 1st Amendment protection from the courts. The "bright line" that needs to be drawn is the one between financing someone else's message and articulating your own.

The Federal Elections Commission (FEC) was reportedly still working last week on a document that explains its position on the way it handles complaints against 527 groups. Lawyers for the FEC are scheduled to go in front of a judge tomorrow to do just that, describe how the agency plans to handle 527 groups in the 2008 campaign. Representatives Shays and Meehan filed a lawsuit against the FEC that sought stronger regulation of these groups. The BNA Money and Politics ($$) article outlines the recent cases which ended in large settlement fees for 527 groups active in the 2004 campaign, such as MoveOn.org, Swift Boat Veterans, and the League of Conservation Voters. After these settlements, many groups are left unsure what this means for the next election season. For that reason, there is clear need for a rulemaking regarding the regulation of 527s. The article also brought up the point that many are asking, why the FEC acted against some groups but not others.

Questions still remain, however, about how far beyond the magic words the FEC is willing to go in seeking to enforce campaign finance limits. The settlements provide examples, but not a comprehensive list, of activities the FEC views as subject to regulation.

As previously noted, the Supreme Court will most likely not hear oral arguments in the Wisconsin Right To Life (WRTL) case until April. However, the current commotion over the case is strong, foreshadowing the commentary to follow the court's decision. Two blogs with differing opinion have been going back forth on the other's commentary. As these arguments bounce off of one another, so does the issue of the case, intent and influence of the WRTL advertisements. See Bob Bauer's latest blog at More Soft Money Hard Law and Rick Hasen's blog at electionlawblog.org. There is also an opinion piece in today's NY Post on the WRTL case with the fitting title, "Un-Squelching Free Speech. See the OMB Watch article, "Court Upholds Wisconsin Group's Right to Air Grassroots Lobbying Ads" for background on the case.

H.R.301, the Voter Bounty Registration Act of 2007, was introduced in the House by Rep. Pierce (R-NM) to amend the Help America Vote Act of 2002 and has seemingly gone under the radar. It seems passage of such a measure would greatly inhibit the ability of nonpartisan organizations from carrying out voter registration drives, placing strict standards on the distribution of application forms.

Prohibits any individual from distributing a voter registration application form for federal elections in a state if the individual: (1) is not registered to vote in such elections; (2) has been convicted of a felony under any state or federal law; (3) does not sign and print legibly the individual's name on the form; or (4) does not provide identifying information to the election official to whom the form will be submitted.

As anticipated, the Supreme Court will consider the Wisconsin Right to Life (WRTL) case this term. The case deals with the ban on corporate and union funding of ads mentioning federal candidates 60 days before a general election, or 30 days before a primary. In December a three-judge court ruled that the WRTL ads in contention were constitutionally protected from the ban. The ruling was appealed, sending the case back to the Supreme Court to be considered this term, as of Friday's decision. According to a press release from James Bopp, the attorney for WRTL; "The Court is likely to hear oral argument in the case in April with a decision by late June."

Read the story in the Washington Post and the New York Times.

On Friday January 12, the Federal Election Commission (FEC) and four members of Congress asked the Supreme Court to uphold the ban on the specific broadcast advertisements that Wisconsin Right to Life (WRTL) prepared to air. Yesterday, in response WRTL appealed to the Supreme Court to consider the case and rule this Term. It will not be determined until this Friday if the Supreme Court will hear the case during this Term. Bob Bauer has a blog today relating this case with the Washington Education Association case. Here he makes an interesting point, that to "support the state in these cases is to further the ongoing attack on the political power of unions, one of the bitter fruits of the progressive infatuation with the regulation of campaign finance."

BNA Money and Politics (subscription required) reports that the Federal Election Commission (FEC) and the congressional sponsors of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (BCRA) have appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court in regards to the federal court ruling in the Wisconsin Right to Life Inc. (WRTL) case. It was ruled that the group had the constitutional right to sponsor three grassroots lobbying advertisements during the 2004 election. WRTL filed a motion asking the Supreme Court to expedite consideration of the FEC's appeal. Both sides want the Supreme Court to review the case quickly. Hopefully this will be the case, and the FEC will address the issue in a rule making.