WASHINGTON — Barb Lyons was frightened. She had visions of sitting in a jail cell, surrounded by hardened criminals.

Her offense? Airing a television ad encouraging constituents to call their senator and ask him to stop blocking judicial nominees.

Sen. Russell Feingold, D-Wis., was up for election at the time, and a campaign finance law he helped craft would have landed Lyons behind bars had she aired the ads prior to the election.

Lyons, executive director of Wisconsin Right to Life, didn’t run the “issue ads,” but opted rather to sue, asking the courts to strike down a portion of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act — also known as McCain-Feingold — banning issue ads on television and radio within 60 days of the general election and 30 days of a primary election.

The U.S. Supreme Court saw things her way. In a 5-4 decision issued June 25, the high court overturned a key provision of the 2002 McCain-Feingold law, saying that lobby groups have a constitutional right to name federal candidates up for election in broadcast ads.

“The decision was a victory for citizens and citizen groups, for free speech and the right to participate in government,” Lyons said, “because the McCain-Feingold law essentially infringed upon all of those aspects of life.”

Wisconsin Right to Life filed suit against the Federal Election Commission (FEC) after it said the ads violated the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act because the senator was up for re-election at the time.

The Supreme Court agreed with an earlier three-judge panel that the pro-life group’s messages were “genuine issue ads” not intended to influence voter decisions, and as such the government could not prevent it from broadcasting. The Supreme Court, however, did not throw out McCain-Feingold’s ban on “express advocacy,” meaning that grassroots organizations still cannot urge citizens directly to vote for or against a candidate.

Despite the victory, Lyons says the existing legislation still impinges on First Amendment rights.

“There’s no question that there’s still some restriction on freedom of speech left in the McCain-Feingold law,” she said. “We would like to see the blackout periods abolished completely, but what we had asked for was for them to carve out an exception for ads that were simply grassroots lobbies. That was our request and we won on that.”

But Kenneth Gross, a Washington lawyer who represents corporations in election law matters, says that calling the Supreme Court decision a victory for First Amendment rights is just spin.

“The decision loosens the restrictions on corporate and labor money in the political process,” he said. “The First Amendment regulates that activity, so the court erred on the side of the First Amendment as opposed to more regulation of money and politics.”

Gross pointed to the Supreme Court’s 2003 McConnell v. FEC decision that upheld the constitutionality of the McCain-Feingold legislation. That ruling dealt with the entire statute, whereas the current decision dealt with a small provision.

“Now the corporate and labor money can enter the picture where before ads had to be financed by individual money or PAC [political action committee] money,” he said. “That money will now enter the political arena within the months before each of the elections. Before this opinion, corporate and labor money was in the process, but it was just harnessed in a different way because the restriction in play only affected electronic communications like TV and radio.”

But the attorney who represented Wisconsin Right to Life in the case contended that the ruling simply restores citizens’ rights to participate in the governmental process.

James Bopp Jr. said the contention that the ruling opens the floodgates to corporate and labor union money is overblown.

“That’s how they disparage [the ruling] because the reformers — and a couple of politicians — are very hostile to the involvement of citizens in our democracy,” he said. “They want to prohibit them from advertising, and the Supreme Court said, ‘No, you cannot prohibit citizens from lobbying their members of Congress.’ Talking about issues, particularly in the context of elections, is exactly what the First Amendment sought to protect.”

“There will certainly be a lot more advertising by advocacy groups trying to lobby their members of Congress,” Bopp explained. “Negative or positive depends on how you look at it. There is no content requirement here. People are perfectly free to praise or criticize government officials about what they do in office.”

Joseph Cella, president of the Catholic advocacy group Fidelis, says the ruling may be the first blow that levels the entire statute.

“But more important regulations that might be eliminated in the not-too-distant future are the onerous guidelines the FEC has leveled involving the definition of what express advocacy is,” said Cella, referring to ads that directly express support for a candidate.

“I think that is what the next campaign finance debate will turn on. The FEC and legislators should view the McCain-Feingold ruling as a shot across their bows reminding them they cannot have unbridled authority over political speech.”

Patrick Novecosky is based in

Naples, Florida.