Court ruling may bring crush of late-breaking political ads

The US Supreme Court decision last week loosening rules on political advertising could significantly alter the 2008 presidential race by allowing a torrent of well-funded TV spots targeting specific candidates, according to campaign finance specialists, political analysts, and interest groups.

The court's decision weakened a provision of the landmark 2002 McCain-Feingold campaign finance law by eliminating a restriction on who can fund so-called issue ads about candidates in the 30 days before primaries and the 60 days before general elections.

Prior to the ruling, corporations, non profits funded by corporate money, and labor unions were prohibited from running ads in those "blackout" periods, unless they set up political action committees, or PACs , which have strict contribution limits and must disclose their backers.

Now, companies, nonprofits, and unions -- largely out of public view -- can, within certain limits, tap their treasuries at will to run aggressive ads about presidential contenders on issues ranging from gun control to gay marriage, election specialists say.

The result, they say, will be even more money flowing into a presidential contest that was already on pace to break spending records.

"The floodgates are pretty much open," said Arn Pearson, campaign reform director for Common Cause, a good-government group that favored retaining the restrictions.

At issue are ads that don't explicitly advocate candidates' election or defeat, but offer information about their positions and records that could nonetheless help or hurt them at the ballot. An example would be an ad that asks voters to call Senator Hillary Clinton of New York and tell her that her approach to universal health would be bad for the nation.

Before last week's ruling, PACs and political parties could run such an ad right before an election, but those entities are subject to contribution limits and can't accept unlimited "soft money" from corporations. Following the decision, a corporation or a union could raise and spend untold millions under the radar to fund ads like that in key states such as New Hampshire or Ohio.

Political analysts say the change means campaigns will have less control over their messages and may have to contend with a lot more negative ads.

"You're going to be in a situation where you don't only worry about your opponent, or even the spending of the other party," said Anthony Corrado, a professor at Colby College specializing in campaign finance. "There's going to be substantial interest group activity on the airwaves."

Interest groups are already studying the ruling and the new avenues available to push their agendas. Representatives of such groups said they are largely focused on congressional races, but a few raised the prospect of being a force in the presidential election.

Tom Minnery, senior vice president at Focus on the Family, the influential Colorado-based Christian organization, offered one scenario where his group might now get involved in the 2008 race: Noting how the Democratic presidential candidates often discuss faith on the campaign trail, he suggested that Focus on the Family might want to highlight how their remarks on the stump compare with their past actions.

"I could see how we would want to correct the record when voting records don't match rhetoric," Minnery said. The Supreme Court decision, which Focus on the Family encouraged, "makes it clear that we can tell voters where their politicians stand on the issues at the very time when voters want to know that -- right before an election," he said.

Larry Pratt, executive director of Gun Owners of America, which also supported the Supreme Court decision, noted that his organization grades every member of Congress on gun issues and could take advantage of the new ruling if the presidential election ends up being a race between a candidate they find favorable and a candidate they don't.

"Then you've got a legitimate target under the restricted rules that we have," Pratt said. "They both have records and both are running for an office where those records will be very germane."

The big question following last week's ruling, said Michael E. Toner, a former Federal Election Commission chairman, is the degree to which such organizations take advantage of it.

"That's where the potential sea change is," said Toner, who is now advising former Tennessee senator Fred Thompson on his potential presidential run. "What we don't know is how aggressive they're going to be."

Indeed, there is a lot of uncertainly among campaign officials and election specialists about how the new ruling will play out. The FEC, for example, could issue entirely new regulations based on the ruling.

Not all analysts are convinced the ruling will bring big changes. Gary C. Jacobson, a political science professor at the University of California-San Diego, noted that so-called 527 organizations -- the most famous being Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, which helped derail Senator John Kerry's 2004 presidential bid by challenging his military record -- already exist as a vehicle for funding ads right up to an election.

"The money changes channels a bit but it keeps growing, and that's not going to change so long as the stakes are seen as so high," Jacobson said.

Scott Helman can be reached at shelman@globe.com.