The implementation of BCRA in 2002 was announced as a great success of American democracy, because the law was adopted with the votes of members of both political parties in Congress. The authors of the legislation argued that it addressed the most controversial effects of the Federal Election Campaign Act, which was the uncontrolled flow of soft money and growing impact of political action committees on the electoral process. As a matter of fact, during the congressional debates there were some critics on both sides of the political aisle, with Senator Mitch McConnell as the leading opponent of the new law. Therefore, there was no surprise when McConnell decided to challenge it and took the issue to the federal courts. Due to a special procedure designed in BCRA, the case was heard by a panel of three district judges, who found part of the legislation unconstitutional, and then the case was brought to the Supreme Court on appeal.

McConnell v. F.E.C. became the first (but not last) decision in which the highest court in the U.S. determined the constitutionality of various provisions of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act. McConnell challenged two restrictions implemented by the campaign finance law: the prohibition of using soft money for election campaigns, and broad limitations on political advertisements used for campaign purposes. In a narrowmargin decision, supported by liberal Justices and Sandra Day O'Connor, the Court upheld the challenged provisions of BCRA, arguing that the impact of campaign finance restrictions on the freedom of speech of contributors was not significant, and was justified by a compelling state interest. As a result, the regulations on soft money and electioneering communications remained in force, and the only part of BCRA which was struck down referred to limitations on political contributions by minorities. Four conservative justices strongly dissented from raising arguments of First Amendment protection of candidates and their contributors, thereby assuring that the clash of values between the left and right wings of the Court would dominate in its subsequent decisions in 2007, 2010 and 2013.