As reported in September, a lawsuit by the Christian Civic League of Maine (CCLM), challenging the electioneering communications provisions of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act was dismissed, but now the group is asking the U.S. Supreme Court to hear an appeal. The lower court rejected the challenge because the ad campaign was on legislation that had already been voted on. The group is claiming that BCRA's ban on corporate and union funding of pre-election ads that refer to a federal candidate is unconstitutional, in regards to ads addressing the Marriage Amendment. The previous rulings held that the group's lawsuit was made moot by the June 2006 Senate vote on the measure, and that the claims were not preserved by the "capable of repetition yet evading review" exception to the mootness doctrine. The district court interpreted the exception's requirement that a plaintiff show a "reasonable expectation ... that the same controversy will recur involving the same complaining party." Attorney James Bopp, representing the Christian Civic League, said no federal court has ever applied such a "perfect storm" standard to a showing that a controversy is capable of repetition. Under this novel approach, no citizen group could ever challenge the BCRA "electioneering communications" provision, even though the Supreme Court said such challenges are permissible in a ruling early this year in Wisconsin Right to Life v. FEC. BNA Money and Politics (subscription required)