By Charles Wolfe
The Associated Press

FRANKFORT - Seven Kentucky statutes that restricted the activities and financing of political campaigns were struck down Friday by a federal appeals court.

A panel of judges said the laws were overly broad or violated freedoms of speech and association.

The panel also said it did not matter that some restrictions were not currently being applied - the General Assembly having used its 2003 budget bill to suspend them.

The ruling by the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Cincinnati came in a lawsuit by Hobie Anderson, a former Republican legislator who ran as a write-in candidate for governor in 1999.

Anderson, of Flatwoods, sued because the state restricted his funding and the manner in which he could campaign. He lost in U.S. District Court at Ashland, but most of that ruling, by Judge Joseph M. Hood, was overturned Friday.

One effect was to strike down Kentucky's law against "electioneering" within 500 feet of a polling place. The court said it "prohibits speech over too much geography."

The ruling also struck down a part of the campaign finance law that defines campaign contributions to include loans from the candidate and which limits loans to $50,000 per election. Loans cannot be restricted, the court said.

Also struck down were statutes prohibiting gubernatorial slates from taking contributions in cash and taking money after an election; prohibiting write-in candidates from raising money in the four weeks prior to an election, and requiring all gubernatorial slates to turn over unspent campaign money to the state.

The ruling upheld the state's ban on public matching funds for write-in candidates. It also upheld the law's "trigger" provision allowing slates that take public matching funds, and thereby agree to spending caps, to receive extra money if a competing slate exceeds the cap.

Both issues are academic at the moment because the 1995 campaign was the only one that involved public campaign financing.

Secretary of State Trey Grayson, who by law is chairman of the State Board of Elections, said he was reviewing the ruling to determine what action was needed for upcoming elections.

Sarah Jackson, executive director of the Kentucky Registry of Election Finance, said parts of the ruling had ramifications for races besides governor. She particularly cited the demise of the ban on postelection contributions.

A message left at Anderson's residence was not returned. Richard Beliles, state chairman of the watchdog group Common Cause, said the ruling was "a big step backward" in the virtually unending battle against election fraud.

The appeals court had the most to say about the ban on electioneering - the practice of distributing campaign material or lobbying for votes.

Anderson said he had wanted to hand out instructions for writing in a vote. He contended it was protected political speech that did not expressly advocate the election or defeat of a candidate.

Kentucky once banned electioneering within 50 feet of a polling place - an effort to protect voters from intimidation or, in some regions, to attempt to stem the ancient practice of vote buying. A task force on election fraud in the late 1980s recommended a 1,000-foot limit. The General Assembly settled on 500 feet.

The appeals court said the state failed to justify the restriction, which had profound implications for free speech.

Anderson's issue - write-in instructions - "at first glance looks like a relatively narrow class of speech," the court said in an opinion by Judge Alice Batchelder. But the State Board of Elections has defined electioneering to include "issue advocacy," which "raises constitutional concerns about a broad class of speech," the court said.

"If electioneering includes Mr. Anderson's instructing voters on how to cast a write-in vote, does it also include, for example, parents urging voters to 'support our schools'? All issue-related speech is chilled by the Board's interpretation of 'electioneering,' "the court said.