The Center for Competitive Politics has issued this press release, quoting Brad Smith’s reaction to the three-judge court’s opinion: “Today the D.C. District Court reaffirmed citizens’ rights to speak over the airwaves about political issues close to an election, and held that the government has no compelling interest in limiting such discussion…. We are grateful that the District Court recognized there are proper exceptions to the electioneering communications provisions and drew a meaningful distinction between grassroots lobbying and electioneering. Senators pass laws at all times of the year. The Court recognized that citizens shouldn’t be frozen out of the process just because an election approaches.”
For a different perspective, see this statement on the Democracy 21 site, in which Fred Wertheimer says: “‘We disagree with the court’s decision today, and believe it is inconsistent with the Supreme Court’s ruling in the McConnell case that upheld the constitutionality of the ‘electioneering communications’ provisions. We expect the intervening-defendants to appeal the decision to the Supreme Court…. In our view, the ads and the context in which they were run, including the facts and circumstances surrounding the ads, make clear that these were the kind of campaign ads that BCRA intended to regulate. The regulation of these campaign ads as ‘electioneering communications’ is plainly constitutional under the Supreme Court’s reasoning in the McConnell decision.”
Rick’s earlier posts on the case may be found here and here.
Update: Smith has now elaborated in his thoughts in this blog post.