October Term 2005 · Docket 04-1581
Can the government ban issue ads that target lawmakers?
the sides that brought the case seek to air ads about congressional votes. The agency claims these ads violate campaign finance laws.
Verified source milestones
- — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.
The arguments, in order
This case may have been argued more than once. Each entry below uses that session's official transcript. Later arguments do not erase earlier ones.
Argument 1 ·
What happened at the argument
Mr. Bopp argued the case involves a fundamental First Amendment question.
He stated the government cannot shield lawmakers from grassroots lobbying.
General Clement noted the Court upheld title II definitions in McConnell.
Justice Souter expressed a problem with the side that brought the case's argument structure.
Read the official transcript for this argument · Official argument details
Sources used for this argument breakdown
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 10, lines 15-17 — Transcript, file page 10, lines 15-17
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 10, lines 27-33 — Transcript, file page 10, lines 27-33
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 10, lines 7-11 — Transcript, file page 10, lines 7-11
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 12, lines 17-17 — Transcript, file page 12, lines 17-17
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 25, lines 11-21 — Transcript, file page 25, lines 11-21
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-37 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-37
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 39-19 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 39-19
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 5-15 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 5-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 25-5 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 25-5
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 35-35 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 35-35
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 37-3 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 37-3
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 9-9 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 9-9
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 27-47 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 27-47
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 11-13 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 11-13
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 27-31 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 27-31
A citizen's guide to the whole case
What this case is about
This case tests the scope of electioneering communication rules. the sides that brought the case argue these rules infringe on free speech. The agency argues the rules prevent corporate influence on elections.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 25, lines 11-21 — Transcript, file page 25, lines 11-21
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-37 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-37
How the case got here
The Supreme Court heard oral argument in this case on January 17, 2006.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 5-15 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 5-15
What each side wants
the sides that brought the case want to air ads about congressional votes without penalty.
The agency wants to enforce bans on ads it deems electioneering communications.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 25, lines 11-21 — Transcript, file page 25, lines 11-21
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-37 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-37
What each side says
the sides that brought the case argue the First Amendment protects issue advocacy about lawmakers.
The agency argues these ads function as electioneering communications.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 25, lines 11-21 — Transcript, file page 25, lines 11-21
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-37 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-37
What the justices asked
Justice Breyer asked about the content of the website linked in the ads.
Chief Justice Roberts asked if the side that brought the case took a position before the election window opened.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 10, lines 15-17 — Transcript, file page 10, lines 15-17
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 10, lines 27-33 — Transcript, file page 10, lines 27-33
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 10, lines 7-11 — Transcript, file page 10, lines 7-11
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 12, lines 17-17 — Transcript, file page 12, lines 17-17
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 39-19 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 39-19
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 25-5 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 25-5
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 35-35 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 35-35
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 37-3 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 37-3
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 9-9 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 9-9
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 27-47 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 27-47
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 11-13 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 11-13
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 27-31 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 27-31
Why it matters
This dispute defines the boundary between political speech and campaign activity. It determines how much corporate money can influence legislative debates. The outcome shapes the balance between free expression and election integrity.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 25, lines 11-21 — Transcript, file page 25, lines 11-21
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-37 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-37
What happens next
This article currently covers the argument record. Use the official docket link for later case activity.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 10, lines 15-17 — Transcript, file page 10, lines 15-17
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 10, lines 27-33 — Transcript, file page 10, lines 27-33
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 10, lines 7-11 — Transcript, file page 10, lines 7-11
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 12, lines 17-17 — Transcript, file page 12, lines 17-17
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 39-19 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 39-19
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 5-15 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 5-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 25-5 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 25-5
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 35-35 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 35-35
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 37-3 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 37-3
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 9-9 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 9-9
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 27-47 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 27-47
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 11-13 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 11-13
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 27-31 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 27-31
Official Court provenance
Official docket and case history · Official Supreme Court oral-argument detail page
Title and summary sources
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 25, lines 11-21 — Transcript, file page 25, lines 11-21
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-37 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-37
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 25, lines 11-21 — Transcript, file page 25, lines 11-21
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-37 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-37
Revision history
- Revision 1 · Official Transcript ·
Correction: Rewritten to the concise citizen-facing editorial standard.
- Revision 2 · Official Transcript ·
Correction: Migrated to the dated official Court activity contract without model use.