Final answer:
Wisconsin Right to Life v. Federal Election Commission (2007) was a significant case where the Supreme Court ruled that issue ads cannot be prohibited before an election as it violates the free speech rights under the First Amendment, which forms a foundation for later decisions affecting campaign finance law.
Step-by-step explanation:
The case Wisconsin Right to Life v. Federal Election Commission (WRTL) in 2007 was a significant Supreme Court decision that struck down parts of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 (BCRA), often referred to as the McCain-Feingold Act. Specifically, the Court held that issue ads may not be prohibited before an election as they are a form of protected speech under the First Amendment unless the ads can be construed as direct advocacy for or against a candidate. After earlier cases such as Buckley v. Valeo and going through to the decision in Citizens United v. FEC, WRTL is an important case in the evolution of American campaign finance law. It shows the continued tension between regulation aimed at preventing corruption or the appearance of corruption in elections and the fundamental freedom of speech guaranteed by the Constitution. This tension and the Court's interpretations have significant implications for how elections are financed and how special interest groups can influence them.