Private: Return of the Campaign Finance Reform

The Supreme Court's term fall term begins Monday, with campaign finance reform high on the agenda. While not the sexiest cases of the new session, their impact could be widespread.
In a challenge to the McCain-Feingold Act, an anti-abortion group in Wisconsin claims provisions barring soft money ads directly before an election illegally suppress their "genuine efforts to express their views on an issue."
The case, Wisconsin Right to Life v. FEC, will be the first heard by the Supreme Court on the federal law since Justice O'Connor joined the narrow majority upholding McCain-Feingold in a 5-4 decision.
A second case, Vermont Republican State Committee v. William Sorrell, will examine Vermont's strict limits on campaign spending and contributions, including a $400 limit on contributions to candidates for statewide office and a $300,000 spending cap on gubernatorial races.
On Election Law Blog, Rick Hasen comments on the choices:

These are very interesting developments. In recent years, the Court has divided 5-4 in some major campaign finance decisions. With the replacement of Chief Justice Rehnquist and (presumably) Justice O'Connor, we could well be looking at a new majority on the Court that will start voting to strike down campaign finance laws as inconsistent with the First Amendment. (Indeed, this might be an area where we will see quickly to a Chief Justice Roberts how much respect for recent constitutional precedent matters.) Since the 1976 Buckley case, the Court's cases have swung back and forth like a pendulum, in recent years in favor of upholding campaign finance regulations. We could well be entering the period where the pendulum swings back.

Equality and Liberty