Ken Starr to lead court battle against CFR

AP VIA Yahoo.com ^ | 03-21-02 | By JIM ABRAMS

[StopDemocratsDotCom]

LET'S GET READY TO RUMBLE.....
Sen. Mitch McConnell is expected to be the lead plaintiff in the case, said Thursday that his legal team would be led by Starr, who gained national prominence in his pursuit of former President Clinton over the Whitewater land deal and the Monica Lewinsky case, and by First Amendment lawyer Floyd Abrams.

"This is a mission to preserve the fundamental constitutional freedom of all Americans to fully participate in our democracy," said McConnell, R-Ky.

The Senate on Wednesday passed and sent to President Bush the most far-reaching campaign finance legislation in the past quarter-century. It bans the hundreds of millions of dollars in unregulated "soft money" that corporations, unions and individuals give the national political parties and restricts in the final days before an election the use of soft money for "issue ads" that name a candidate, often with the purpose of attacking him.

Bush said the bill is "flawed," but promised to sign it because he said it improves the system overall.

McConnell said opponents plan to file their lawsuit before a three-judge panel in U.S. District Court in Washington, D.C., with the expectation that it would move quickly to the Supreme Court.

"These are perilous waters into which the Republic has now sailed," Starr said at a news conference with McConnell. "The questions are grave, the questions are serious. It is now time for the courts to speak authoritatively to what the Congress has chosen to do."

Sen. Russ Feingold, D-Wis., who sponsored the campaign finance bill in the Senate with Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., said he believes the measure protects First Amendment rights. He said they will assemble their own legal team, and he has Attorney General John Ashcroft's assurance that the Justice Department would defend the statute's constitutionality.

The legality of campaign finance legislation has been an issue since the last effort to limit campaign spending in 1974. In 1976, in Buckley v. Valeo, the Supreme Court ruled that Congress could set limits on contributions, but that limits on spending violated free speech rights.

McConnell and his team said they would focus on a provision that bars the use of soft money 30 days before a primary or 60 days before a general election for "issue ads" that refer directly to a candidate.

Supporters of the bill say anyone can run issue ads as long as they use highly regulated and limited contributions "hard money." Under the legislation, the most that an individual can contribute in hard money to a candidate per election would be $2,000, double the current ceiling.

Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle, D-S.D., said he voted for the issue ad provision because "we think it's a very important contribution to the overall new framework we're trying to create with this bill."

But he added there is a clause in the legislation to ensure that the rest of the bill is unaffected if one part of it is struck down in the courts.

The bill would take effect Nov. 6, the day after this year's congressional elections. McConnell said they would like to see action on their challenge before then.

Other members of McConnell's legal team are: James Bopp, general counsel for the James Madison Center for Free Speech; Bobby Burchfield, an election lawyer who was involved in the Buckley v. Valeo case; Washington election lawyer Jan Baran; and Kathleen Sullivan, dean of the Stanford University Law School.

He said other corporations, unions and interest groups that oppose the bill are also expected to join him as plaintiffs.

___

The bill is H.R. 3256.

[Judith Anne]

This is the phrase that bothers me..."a provision that bars the use of soft money 30 days before a primary or 60 days before a general election for "issue ads" that refer directly to a candidate."

Does this mean that hard money can be used for issue ads that refer directly to a candidate? Does is mean that NO issue ads can refer directly to a candidate?

I may be asking a dumb question here. If so, be kind and ignore me...Thanks ;-D

[sneakypete]

Well,the fix is in,and CFR is a done deal. Once all the lawyers Bubba-2,the DNC,and the RNC owe favors too earn a few million each in fees from the gooberment,that is. One thing Starr knows how to do is ignore evidence and lose a slam-dunk case. It may even be his speciality.

[sneakypete]

Could they have chosen a more incompetent person to 'lead' this?

They WANT to lose,and picked the most competent man to accomplish this. This is just a way to legally funnel more fees to Starr and the other lawyers owed favors.

[Don Joe]

"It may even be his speciality."

For some deals you call in the closer, for some deals you call in the hoser. Nyuk nyuk!

Hey, gotta find some humor in this stuff. Even the Ruskies used to find humor while groaning under their commie dictators (i.e., "they pretend to pay us, and we pretend to work", etc.)

[sneakypete]

The leaders of the GOP couldn't find their own butts with a flashlights.

That would be your hero,idol,and master Bubba-2.

I surely wouldnt' admit Tom Delay was a hero of mine.

Takes a lot of nerve for a Bush-Bot to say something like that.

[sneakypete]

Give us a list of the ones he has won.

Let's be fair,here. Kenny "won" when he was investigating crimes comitted by Bubba-1 in the sense that he did what he was paid to do. He never had any intention of going after Bubba-1 on any of the serious charges,and even made DAMN sure he couldn't really nail him for perjury by making sure Bubba-1 knew about the DNA on the blue dress before his videotaped statement under oath. If Starr had any intention at all of seeing Bubba-1 impeached AND removed from office,all he had to do was keep that secret and get Bubba-1 on videotape denying the whole thing under oath.

[Lucius Cornelius Sulla]

Does this mean that hard money can be used for issue ads that refer directly to a candidate?

Yes it does, but 'hard money' means direct campaign contributions. The more candid supporters of this legislation virtually concede that this 'issue ad' provision of the bill is nearly certain to be declared unconstitutional.

[Judith Anne]

Thank you. That's what I was thinking, but I wasn't sure.

[LS]

I don't think Bush is devious or sneaky. But do you know what a truly sneaky or devious administration would do? Have Ashcroft bring his "D" game to the proceedings and get thrashed by Starr. Indeed, if one was really clever, Ashcroft could, in his "defense" of the bill, raise issues in such a way that the Court would HAVE to rule on even those parts that the DEMS don't WANT the Court to touch.

That is, if someone was sneaky and devious.

[rwfromkansas]

I don't blame Bush for sending him to argue the case.....he really doesn't have any other choice. But, I do blame him for signing. The only hope I have is htat he will sign it, and refuse to enforce certain provisions until the courts decide to rule on them. I would not be as furious with him if he did that....I think he would keep my vote in 2004...if he did that instead of just outright signing.

[rwfromkansas]

look at his history in the Supreme Court before you open your slimy mouth.

[rwfromkansas]

look at his history in the Supreme Court before you open your slimy mouth.

[rwfromkansas]

because he has won almost every case he has argued before the Supreme Court

[rwfromkansas]

I expect it will be more difficult for him to come up with a slam-dunk case for CFR if Ashcroft is against it. So it may not be a bad thing.

[Valin]

Sen. Russ Feingold, D-Wis., who sponsored the campaign finance bill in the Senate with Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., said he believes the measure protects First Amendment rights.

Less is more and more is less.

[Valin]

Very well put. He ran into willards spin machine and it chewed him up and spit him out. He never understood the pr angle to that whole thing.

[princess leah]

The whole mess lies with the fact we don't have Reps. up in Congress that stand up for what the Constitution stands for except for a few like McConnell, etc. The mere fact that Congress has wasted so much time over Campaign Finance INSTEAD of an Energy Bill which would loosen our dependence on the very terrorists who killed our people, makes my blood boil over! We need Daschle out of power and that's only going to happen if people get out and vote the dems out in November!!

[B. A. Conservative]

Ashcroft's job is not to do what he is told. His job is to uphold the law and that includes enforcing the Constitution. He should be the one bringing this case to the Court, not McConnell.

[Valin]

The mere fact that Congress has wasted so much time over Campaign Finance

A couple of weeks ago I did one of my world famous galloping polls, asking folks I work with if they knew ANYTHING about CFR. SUPRISE!! no one knew anthing about it and basicly even less interest in it. The comments I got could be summed up by "They're all a bunch of crooks."

[B. A. Conservative]

Politicians providing lots of smoke and mirrors signifying nothing. This is what our government has come to be. It is time for a change and everyone on this web site knows it. How much change? Try This!