# FEC v. Wisconsin Right to Life (June 25, 2007) **Citation:** 551 U.S. 449 (2007) **Vote:** 5-4 **Decided:** June 25, 2007 **Statute challenged:** [[Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act]] electioneering-communications provision *FEC v. Wisconsin Right to Life* — commonly **WRTL** — substantially gutted the [[Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act]] electioneering-communications restriction four years after [[McConnell v. FEC]] had upheld it. The case is the first major Roberts Court campaign-finance decision and signaled the doctrinal direction that would culminate in [[Citizens United v. FEC]] (2010). Wisconsin Right to Life was a 501(c)(4) anti-abortion organization that wished to run broadcast ads during the BCRA-defined "electioneering communications" window (30 days before primary, 60 days before general election) urging Wisconsin voters to contact Senators Russ Feingold and Herb Kohl about a pending judicial-nomination filibuster. The ads referenced Senator Feingold by name. Feingold was a candidate for reelection. The ads were facially **issue advocacy** (urging contact with senators on a policy question) but were functionally **electioneering** (naming a candidate within the BCRA window, with a clear partisan signal). BCRA's electioneering-communications provision had been designed precisely to capture this gray-area category — issue ads that were in substance candidate ads — and had been upheld as facially constitutional in [[McConnell v. FEC]] (2003). ## The Holding The Roberts Court ([[Chief Justice Roberts]] writing for himself and [[Justice Alito]]; Justices Scalia, Thomas, and Kennedy concurring in the judgment) held that BCRA's electioneering-communications provision could not be applied to ads that are **susceptible of any reasonable interpretation other than as an appeal to vote for or against a specific candidate**. The "any reasonable interpretation" standard is extraordinarily permissive — it requires near-explicit candidate advocacy ("vote for X," "defeat X") before the BCRA provision applies. The practical effect was to **return to the *Buckley* "magic words" framework** that BCRA had been designed to close. After WRTL, an ad referring to a candidate by name, broadcast within the BCRA window, urging viewers to take some action that has political implications (call your senator, support our cause) but not literally saying "vote for" or "vote against" was outside BCRA's reach. Chief Justice Roberts framed the holding narrowly — as a "facial" question about how BCRA applies in specific cases. Justice Souter's dissent (joined by Justices Stevens, Ginsburg, and Breyer) pointed out that the holding effectively overruled *McConnell v. FEC* without saying so: BCRA's electioneering-communications provision had been upheld in *McConnell* because it captured exactly the kind of ad WRTL had run, and the WRTL framework rendered the provision essentially unenforceable. ## Significance for the KB *WRTL* is the under-discussed pivot in the Roberts Court's campaign-finance jurisprudence. The case: 1. **Foreshadowed *Citizens United*.** The 2007 majority signaled that the BCRA framework would not survive — *Citizens United* in 2010 completed the dismantling on the corporate-spending side. 2. **Demonstrated stare-decisis pliability.** *McConnell v. FEC* (2003) had upheld BCRA's electioneering-communications provision. *WRTL* (2007) reached an outcome that substantially narrowed *McConnell* without formally overruling it — a doctrinal move that is characteristic of the Roberts Court's approach to disfavored precedent. 3. **Restored the magic-words loophole.** Issue advertising thinly disguised as candidate advocacy — the principal pre-BCRA loophole — was substantially restored by *WRTL* and remains the operative regime today. For the contemporary dark-money architecture, *WRTL* matters because it permits substantial coordinated political messaging by [[501(c)(4)]] organizations that does not formally count as "electioneering" and therefore does not trigger BCRA's disclosure requirements. The dark-money issue-advocacy infrastructure operates in the space *WRTL* opened. ## See Also - [[Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act]] — the statute narrowed - [[McConnell v. FEC]] — the 2003 case that had upheld BCRA's electioneering-communications provision - [[Citizens United v. FEC]] — the 2010 culmination of the Roberts Court's BCRA dismantling - [[Buckley v. Valeo]] — the 1976 doctrinal foundation (whose "magic words" framework was substantially restored) - [[Electioneering Communication]] — the legal category at issue - [[Federal Election Commission]] — the named plaintiff - [[Campaign Finance Timeline]] — full chronological view - [[Campaign Finance]] — Foundations hub