Judge declares N.C. campaign laws unconstitutional

The Associated Press

05.01.98

Printer-friendly page

RALEIGH, N.C. -- In a decision that strikes at the heart of North Carolina's campaign-finance regulations, a federal judge has ruled that state laws governing political action committees and campaign contributions by corporations are unconstitutional.

The ruling Thursday by U.S. district court Judge Terrence Boyle said the state's laws—which provide that political groups must produce detailed disclosures of political giving—violate the First Amendment guarantee of free speech.

Attorney General Mike Easley called the three-pronged decision "this sweeping order that basically eliminates the state's control of big money into campaigns right now."

Boyle's ruling came in a lawsuit filed by North Carolina Right to Life, an anti-abortion group, against the state Board of Elections. The group challenged the constitutionality of rules that limit how it can spread its message and how it can raise money for candidates who oppose abortion.

Boyle agreed with North Carolina Right to Life that state laws requiring detailed financial disclosures from any group that seeks to influence "or attempt to influence" the result of an election were too broad.

He cited a U.S. Supreme Court ruling that defined political action committees as groups "that expressly advocate the election or defeat of a clearly identified candidate."

North Carolina's laws had the effect of "chilling" the free speech of organizations that merely wanted to be public advocates for their causes, Boyle said.

The judge also struck down North Carolina's decades-old ban on corporate contributions and a law adopted last year prohibiting lobbyists from making contributions to legislators or their opponents while the General Assembly is in session.

Boyle reasoned in his decision that North Carolina's limits on corporate giving were too broad because they "make no attempt to distinguish between corporations which pose a threat to the integrity of the political process and those which do not."

Some nonprofit corporations formed for the sole purpose of promoting political ideas should not face the same limits as for-profit companies, Boyle said.

Although the rules banning gifts to candidates during legislative sessions were intended to avoid corruption, Boyle said they placed too great a burden on free-speech rights.

"A statute seeking to avoid corruption or the appearance of corruption in the state legislature does not advance those purposes by limiting the fundraising of non-incumbent candidates for office," Boyle wrote.

"Additionally, the statute fails to account for the fact that political corruption may occur at any time, whether or not the legislature is in session," he wrote.

Deborah Ross, executive director of the state's American Civil Liberties Union chapter, said she was pleased with the decision to throw out the state's ban on lobbyist contributions to challengers.

State law already prohibited incumbents from receiving such contributions during legislative sessions.

"The legislator can get lots of free media doing whatever they do at the legislature while the challenger has his or her hands tied," Ross said.

The decision--coming days before Tuesday's legislative and U.S. Senate primaries--landed during the heart of the political season, Easley said. The ruling could force the General Assembly to draft new campaign laws after it convenes for its summer session May 11.

"We're talking about striking the control the state has over lobbyist contributions going to the General Assembly 10 days before they go into session," he said. "Both of these things are rather dramatic changes, one of which has been on the books for decades, the corporate contributions."

Easley said he would ask Boyle today for a delay in implementing his ruling. He said he also would ask the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond, Va., for a delay if necessary.

• Money Talks: Free Speech and Campaign Finance Reform