By Ashley Dickson
The Supreme Court cited research by BYU professor David Magleby in a decision issued Wednesday upholding a controversial law that curbs the influence of “soft money” contributions in politics.
Magleby, a political science professor and dean of BYU”s College of Home, Family and Social Sciences, worked with other scholars during the 1998, 2000 and 2002 elections to observe U.S. House and Senate races.
“For several elections since 1998 I organized other scholars around the country to monitor what is called soft money and issue advocacy,” Magleby said.
Campaign spending in recent years has been outside the disclosure requirements of federal election law, Magleby said.
Because of Magleby”s directly related research, he was asked to provide expert testimony when the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act was challenged.
Magleby was deposed by lawyers for both sides of the Court case.
“There was a lengthy report that I wrote that summarized the data from the research,” Magleby said. “It turns out that a lot of the information became part of the briefs that the lawyers wrote to the Supreme Court.”
The case resulted in a 5-4 decision.
Magleby said the work was cited by both the majority opinion, which was written by Justices John Paul Stevens and Sandra Day O”Connor, and by the dissenting minority opinion, headed by Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist and Justices Antonin Scalia, Anthony M. Kennedy and Clarence Thomas.
The justices were interested in Magleby”s accounts of political groups using soft money, or unregulated contributions, to bypass restrictions on direct financing of candidates, according to a BYU news release.
Magleby said the court decided to uphold the ban on soft money and to uphold the ban on corporations using union and treasury funds for election purposes.
According to an Associated Press article, the court said rooting out corruption, or even the appearance of it, justifies limitations on the free speech and free spending of contributors, candidates and political parties.
“We are under no illusion that (the law) will be the last congressional statement on the matter,” Justices John Paul Stevens and Sandra Day O”Connor wrote for the majority. “Money, like water, will always find an outlet. What problems will arise, and how Congress will respond, are concerns for another day.”
The majority stated in a 275-page ruling that “there is substantial evidence to support Congress” determination that large soft-money contributions to national political parties give rise to corruption and the appearance of corruption,” according to the Supreme Court”s Web site at www.supremecourtus.gov.
Members of BYU”s Political Science Department said it is extraordinary to have a political science researcher play such a large role and be cited by the Supreme Court in a public policy decision such as this.
“It is remarkable for a political scientist to help shape in such a significant fashion the way in which the Supreme Court thinks about campaign finance reform,” said Kelly D. Patterson, chair of the Political Science Department, in the news release.
