Local political parties are waiting for a decision by the Supreme Court that could possibly determine the future of their federal campaigns.

The Supreme Court heard opening arguments Sept. 8 on the campaign finance reform law, also known as the McCain-Feingold law, named after the senators who supported it.

This is the first time since the Watergate tapes scandal in 1974 the Court has interrupted its summer recess to hear a case.

Robert Lowry, associate professor of political science, said the biggest change this law brought was national parties could no longer raise soft money. It also meant state parties could not spend soft money on federal elections.

“That’s been a huge change, especially for the Democrats,” Lowry said.

Mark Daley, communication director for the Iowa Democratic Party, said the law does not affect the party’s day to day operation.

Gentry Collins, executive director for the Iowa Republican Party, said the law has made it much more difficult to raise hard money as opposed to soft money.

“Not that our hands have been tied and the Democrats’ haven’t, but it certainly hampers our ability to campaign directly,” Collins said.

He also said the law will make it illegal for a candidate running in a federal election to help another candidate running in a state election.

Collins gave the example of a federal candidate being barred from speaking at a gathering put on by a state election candidate, even if it had nothing to do with the federal election.

“Frankly it’s a little ridiculous,” Collins said.

The law also restricts advertising, or “electioneering communications” from corporations and labor unions 30 days before a primary election and 60 days before a general election. The American Civil Liberties Union called the provision unconstitutional because it restricted the free speech of the corporations, labor unions and nonprofit organizations.

Cara Harris, president of the Iowa State chapter of the ACLU, said it would basically make it a crime to comment on anything that might affect the federal election.

“[The ACLU’s] biggest beef would be not being able to discuss the Bush campaign and the Patriot Act and such,” said Harris, a junior in liberal studies.

Collins said the law clearly infringes on the First Amendment.

“The participation in the political process is one of the most fundamental rights and the court ought to protect that,” Collins said.

Lowry said he doesn’t worry so much about the possible violation of the right of speech, but more about the vagueness of the law. He said it does not draw a line on what is considered to be “electioneering communications.”

According to the New York Times, the vote may be in the hands of Justice Sandra Day O’Connor after Chief Justice William Rehnquist called his 1990 decision supporting Michigan’s restrictions on campaign spending “dubious.”

Lowry said the lineup in the Supreme Court is a little different than normal with Rehnquist falling in the middle of the issue and Justice Anthony Kennedy pushing toward the side of free speech. He said the decision may still come down to O’Connor in the end.

O’Connor looks very closely at the facts and does not announce a principle at the beginning as the other justices do, Lowry said.

“She seems to just be fact-oriented,” he said. “She see things in gray and not just black and white.”

Lowry said he is betting the decision will come out before the holiday season, but he did not have a guess on the outcome.