Cite as: 540 U. S. 93 (2003)
Opinion of the Court
BCRA § 403(b)
The National Right to Life plaintiffs argue that the District Court's grant of intervention to the intervenor-defendants, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24(a) and BCRA § 403(b), must be reversed because the intervenor-defendants lack Article III standing. It is clear, however, that the Federal Election Commission (FEC) has standing, and therefore we need not address the standing of the intervenor-defendants, whose position here is identical to the FEC's. See, e. g., Clinton v. City of New York, 524 U. S. 417, 431-432, n. 19 (1998); Bowsher v. Synar, 478 U. S. 714, 721 (1986). Cf. Diamond v. Charles, 476 U. S. 54, 68-69, n. 21 (1986) (reserving the question for another day). For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the District Court's
judgment finding the plaintiffs' challenges to BCRA § 305, § 307, and the millionaire provisions nonjusticiable, striking down as unconstitutional BCRA § 318, and upholding BCRA § 311. The judgment of the District Court is
Affirmed.
Justice Breyer delivered the opinion of the Court with respect to BCRA Title V.*
We consider here the constitutionality of § 504 of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 (BCRA), amending the Communications Act of 1934. That section requires broadcasters to keep publicly available records of politically related broadcasting requests. 47 U. S. C. § 315(e) (Supp. II). The McConnell plaintiffs, who include the National Association of Broadcasters, argue that § 504 imposes onerous administrative burdens, lacks any offsetting justification, and consequently violates the First Amendment. For similar reasons, the three judges on the District Court found BCRA § 504 unconstitutional on its face. 251 F. Supp. 2d
*Justice Stevens, Justice O'Connor, Justice Souter, and Justice Ginsburg join this opinion in its entirety.
233
Page: Index Previous 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 NextLast modified: October 4, 2007