The McConnell v. F.E.C. decision upheld all the major provisions of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act, including those regarding the electioneering communications restrictions and the prohibition of those advertisements which directly promoted certain candidates for federal offices. Before the elections of 2004, the Wisconsin Right To Life corporation publicized three advertisements in which citizens were encouraged to try and influence U.S. Senators in their political activities concerning judicial nominations. According to BCRA, electioneering communications could not be presented less than 60 days before the election, which limited the possibility of the corporation to run their advertisement during that period. Wisconsin Right to Life challenged the law in the District Court, which agreed with their argumentation, and the case was appealed to the Supreme Court, which reached its verdict in 2007.

The organization argued that their ads referred to issues and not to direct advocacy of a candidate for federal office, whereas the Federal Election Commission stated that the controversial advertisements were aimed at influencing the results of the election. The Supreme Court supported Wisconsin Right to Life, construing a five-vote majority of conservative Justices (Sandra Day O'Connor was replaced in 2005 by Samuel Alito, who signed the majority decision). The Court agreed that the advertisements at stake promoted issues not candidates, and, therefore, did not violate the BCRA, whereas the prohibited advertisements had to leave no doubts as to the intent of the authors connected with the supporting of a concrete candidate. The Justices did not find any interest of the government in restricting the publication of advertisements which only indirectly referred to the conduct of federal election campaigns.

MR. JUSTICE ROBERTS announced the judgment of the Court…