Senator Mitch McConnell (R-KY) filed an amicus in the Wisconsin Right to Life (WRTL) case. Bob Bauer at moresoftmoneyhardlaw.com contends it is "the first and so far most significant major constitutional test of McCain-Feingold, and while this engagement was won by his adversaries, he has yet to disarm." McConnell argues that grassroots lobbying broadcasts should not be limited, but also charges that ads without any reference to a candidate or the purpose of influencing an election will not in the end have any influence on the election. As Bauer comments, "he goes one step farther than necessary" because there is not point to agree with the argument that there would be no influence. A candidate's current legislative behavior is bound to have an indirect influence on the voter, but that is not corrupting, as long as the information accurately portrays the candidate's legislative actions. As already noted, the moresoftmoneyhardlaw blog will be posting analysis of the briefs filed in the case. From today: No finer brief, none more trenchant nor more constructive, has been filed with the Court in the Wisconsin Right to Life case than the one submitted by Kathleen Sullivan and colleagues at the Stanford Constitutional Law Center on behalf of the Family Research Council (FRC) and other nonprofit advocacy organizations. Here is a presentation that sticks to the point and then brings to the Court's attention a mistake in its McConnell jurisprudence that, if corrected, would go a long way toward settling the issue advertising wars. The FRC brief considers the decision to not allow nonprofit corporations from funding "electioneering communications" even if funded only from individual contributions. Nonprofit corporations that would like to have such communications can set up PACs, but as this brief correctly states, there are valid reasons why a nonprofit would not want to do so. Some, such as 501(c)(3) organizations, legally can not do so. "The mission of many nonprofit advocacy groups like Amici is not to influence elections, but to advocate on issues. They therefore should not be required to operate as if they are essentially partisan, political committees." FRC makes a very impressionable distinction between small grassroots organizations and large scare corporations that can afford to look into the intricate Federal Election Commission (FEC) regulations, and more apt to take risk of violations. Likewise, mega-corporations like General Electric, Time Warner, Viacom, and Disney that happen to own broadcast stations, even while operating them in the economic realm for profit, can promote their political views, and others they may see fit to license, over the airwaves in the form of "news stor[ies], commentar[ies], or editorial[s]" that remain uncurbed in pre-election time periods.