Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., explained that the sponsors were calling for a stay because, despite their feelings that the ruling was mostly in their favor, the late date at which it had been issued and the fact that it will likely be ruled on soon by the U.S. Supreme Court created a confusing number of different standards that was unfair to candidates in the 2004 elections.

If the district court does not grant a stay – a decision is expected as soon as next week -- the legislators can ask the Supreme Court to stay the judgment.

Congress and the courts have long debated how to reform a campaign finance system, which critics have derided as corrupt, without violating the First Amendment.

The McCain-Feingold bill, named for its sponsors, McCain and Sen. Russ Feingold, D-Wisc., became law last year. The centerpiece of the law forbid the raising of “soft money” – large contributions to political parties made by corporations, labor unions and wealthy individuals.

Before the new law went into effect, parties could raise soft money for use in state and local campaigns and for non-campaign related activities with no federal restrictions.
The act also forbid the use of soft money to finance political ads that urge voters to vote for or against a specific candidate.

The aim of these provisions, Shays said Thursday, was “to establish the principle that campaign ads should be paid for with campaign dollars,” rather than with money raised by third parties and then used to help candidates.

To that end, the act raised the limit on contributions an individual can make to a candidate, known as “hard money,” from $1,000 to $2,000.

Opponents of the law say that the first two provisions violate the First Amendment, because the ban on using soft money for ads, they say, unconstitutionally restricts speech, and a ban on raising so ft money restricts individuals’ rights to express their opinions in the political pro

A three-judge panel of the U.S. District Court issued a long, complicated and deeply divided ruling last Friday that struck down the McCain-Feingold ban on soft money, but actually strengthened the ban on using soft money to air issue ads.

The McCain-Feingold act restricts issue ads in the period immediately before a primary or general election, whereas the court ruling explicitly prohibits issue ads funded with soft money. However, the court does allow soft money to be used for party-building activities.

“Eighty to ninety percent of the law was upheld,” Shays said at a news conference Thursday, joining McCain and other campaign finance reform proponents. He added that the other 10 percent of the law that was not upheld left a “loophole,” which he hopes the Supreme Court will close.

Shays and McCain were both highly critical of the Federal Election Commission, which they accused of opening loopholes in existing campaign finance laws, which prompted campaign finance reform. McCain said he would be introducing new legislation to re-structure and reform the organization.

Legislators were also gently critical of how the news media handled the release of the court decision last week.

Larry Noble of the Center for Responsive Politics, a Washington watchdog group, agreed, saying many people thought the initial decision was more prejudicial to the McCain-Feingold bill than it actually was.

“Early reports that [the court] struck down the McCain-Feingold law were wrong,” said Noble.

In response to news reports that some Democrats had started raising soft money again when the ruling was issued, the bill’s sponsors emphasized the need for the Supreme Court to rule definitively on the issue.
“The Supreme Court needs to shut the door tight,” Rep. Marty Meehan, D-Mass.