October Term 2006 · Docket 06-969

Can the FEC ban issue ads that lack express candidate advocacy?

The FEC argues issue ads must follow campaign rules. Wisconsin Right to Life claims this bans protected speech.

Official caption
Federal Election Comm'n v. Wisconsin Right to Life, Inc.
Latest argument session
Latest official Court activity
Latest verified event
Argued
Sources analyzed through
Official Transcript

Verified source milestones

  1. — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.
  2. — 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.

  1. Argument 1 ·

    What happened at the argument

    General Clement argued the Court previously upheld similar restrictions in McConnell.

    Mr. Bopp argued the government contradicts its own expert testimony.

    Justice Ginsburg asked about other issue ads in the record.

    Justice Scalia noted many ads are not issue ads.

    Read the official transcript for this argument · Official argument details

    Sources used for this argument breakdown

A citizen's guide to the whole case

What this case is about

The dispute centers on whether electioneering communication rules apply to issue ads. The FEC seeks to enforce these restrictions. Wisconsin Right to Life seeks to broadcast ads without following them.

Official sources for this section

How the case got here

The Supreme Court heard oral argument in this case on April 25, 2007.

Official sources for this section

What each side wants

The FEC wants the Court to uphold the ban on issue ads.

Wisconsin Right to Life wants the Court to strike down the ban.

Official sources for this section

What each side says

The FEC argues issue ads function as campaign speech.

Wisconsin Right to Life argues issue ads discuss policy, not candidates.

Official sources for this section

What the justices asked

Justice Scalia asked if the statement covered all ads or only issue ads.

Chief Justice Roberts asked how the Court determines if this case is typical.

Official sources for this section

Why it matters

This case defines the boundary between political speech and campaign finance regulation. It determines how groups discuss policy during election seasons. It shapes the scope of First Amendment protections for advocacy groups.

Official sources for this section

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 Court provenance

Official docket and case history · Official Supreme Court oral-argument detail page

Title and summary sources

Revision history

  1. Revision 1 · Official Transcript ·

    Correction: Rewritten to the concise citizen-facing editorial standard.

  2. Revision 2 · Official Transcript ·

    Correction: Migrated to the dated official Court activity contract without model use.

Download this sanitized case as JSON