Federal Judiciary

Fast track on “soft money” opposed

By Akin Gump Supreme Court Practice Group

A Democratic congressman, saying that a Supreme Court ruling on a new campaign finance case would not be likely before the November elections, urgied the Court on Tuesday not to rush the schedule for considering the case.   Rep. Christopher Van Hollen, Jr., of Maryland, a defender of limits on campaign finance, filed a response to the motion to expedite in the case of Republican National Committee, et al., v. Federal Election Commission, et al. (091287).  Van Hollen is a party in the ca

The Court is likely to consider the RNC’s appeal at a Conference, either on June 3 or June 10, since Van Hollen and the others on the other side of the case do not intend to seek additional time to file written briefs reacting to the appeal.  The RNC has asked the Court to speed up the  briefing schedule, if the Court agrees to take on the case for full review.

Van Hollen opposed the plea to expedite the filing of briefs.  One reason, the congressman said, is that the District Court ruling rejecting the RNC’s challenge to the federal ban on “soft money” donations to political parties was so clearly correct that the Supreme Court may want to consider upholding it without further formal review  That would remove the need for expediting the case, Van Hollen said.

But, even if the Court accepts the case, the mandate in federal law that such campaign finance cases be handled on an expedited basis would be satisfied, Van Hollen argued, by following the normal schedule.  Briefs could be filed in time for the Court to hear oral argument after its first sitting, in the week of Oct. 4.  In that event, his motion said, a decision wold be unlikely before the elections on Nov. 4.

Full post as published by SCOTUSBLOG on May 04, 2010 (boomark / email).