On September 8 the Supreme Court heard arguments in the case challenging the constitutionality of the new campaign finance law, officially called Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (BCRA). The major issues argued were restrictions on “electioneering communications” and soft money contributions to political parties. The arguments illustrated the difficulty in drawing the line between genuine issue ads meant to impact legislation and campaign ads. Ads that promote or attack candidates without expressly urging votes for or against a federal candidate have been labeled “issue advocacy.” As a result, nonprofits involved in non-electoral issue campaigns can find themselves caught in a gray area between genuine issue advocacy and electioneering communications. A recent settlement in an enforcement case at the Federal Election Commission (FEC) involving lobbying ads about Florida everglades conservation illustrates the problem. In 1995, the Coalition for Good Government ran television ads supporting a sugar tax to pay for conservation programs in the Florida everglades. At that time Sen. Richard Lugar (R-IN) was chair of the Senate Agriculture Committee, which was considering the bill. He was also a presidential candidate. The Coalition’s lobby campaign was successful in getting Lugar’s support and ran the ads in Florida. The ads had pictures of bumper stickers, including one reading “Lugar for President”. The U.S. Sugar Corp., which opposed the conservation tax, filed a complaint with the FEC. The FEC found that the bumper sticker in the ad was “express advocacy” for Lugar and the Coalition should have filed disclosure reports, since Florida was conducting a straw poll on presidential candidates. (Under BCRA’s new electioneering communications provision, the appearance of the ad could be a criminal offense.) The Coalition settled the case in early September, paying a $9,000 fine. Their attorney, campaign reform advocate Trevor Potter, said the group was trying to influence the legislation, not the presidential campaign. He called the enforcement action “a classic case of the commission going after a small actor while ignoring the bigger issues.” BCRA bans broadcasts sponsored by corporations, including nonprofits, from referring to federal candidates within 60 days of an election or 30 days of a primary. The Federal Election Commission has exempted 501(c)(3) organizations from the rule because these groups are prohibited from supporting or opposing candidates for office. However, BCRA sponsors Reps. Chris Shays (R-CT) and Marty Meehan (D-MA) have sued the FEC challenging the regulation. The Supreme Court will ultimately decide the issue. A ruling is expected by the end of this year. A transcript of the Sept. 8 Supreme Court oral argument has been posted online by the Campaign Legal Center.