Free Speech About Politicians Case Heard by Special Panel.

Washington, D.C. (December 5) - - In a courtroom packed with high-powered legal talent, passion, and reporters, a legal showdown that will probably culminate in a decision next year by the Supreme Court began before a special three-judge panel here in the nation's capital.

Judges Karen Henderson, Richard Leon, and Colleen Kollar-Kotelly heard diametrically opposed interpretations of the intent and likely impact of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 (BCRA), more commonly known as McCain-Feingold, from a star-studded array of former government officials and legal scholars. On the line for pro-lifers is a blatant attempt to stifle their voice in the public square, as well as that of many other grassroots public advocacy groups as well.

Phil Kent, who serves as co-counsel and plaintiff in the omnibus lawsuit filed by Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), wrote in the Washington Times that McConnell v. FEC is about "nothing less than the future of political debate and the ability of American citizens to criticize the government."

While many provisions of BCRA have aroused intense opposition, pro-life resistance is focused on two in particular. First, the bill prohibits incorporated groups and unions from purchasing TV or radio ads that refer to a specific member of Congress or other "candidate" for 30 days before a primary, or 60 days before the general election.

While federal political action committees (PACs) would be allowed to purchase such ads, PACs operate under a host of restrictions, including severe limitations on their fundraising. The ban is so complete it would apply even to ads that merely seek to alert citizens to upcoming votes in Congress.

Second, the law also has an expansive definition of what constitutes illegal "coordination" between a citizen group such as NRLC or its affiliates, and a member of Congress. It is so broad that it places incumbent lawmakers, advocacy groups, and ...