Posted on 03/21/2002 8:01:13 PM PST by StopDemocratsDotCom
"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.
Folks think about this debate and compare it to the age old argument. Politicians have established themselves as legal whores. All they are doing is haggling price. This bill is trying to hide what they are while attempting to legalise the pricing. This bill's supporters are scounderals and everyone of them should be removed or thrown out of office.
Yes he could, but that wouldn't remove the lawful requirement that the Office of Solicitor General (Ted Olsen) defend the case for the Government, now would it?
I'm sure the good Judge will do a bang-up job.
Same as...well; forget it.
Guess we're gonna get this CFR legislation after all.
If I may, Judge Starr was something like 23-1 on legal battles with the Sink Emperor's attorneys at one time. On the PR front, that is another story....
Excuse me,I meant to say "obstruction of justice",and "conspiracy to commit perjury and obstruction of justice" there. The conspiracy charges would have opened this thing wide-open.
My "slimey mouth"? Kiss my Bush,you brainless punk!
You: he could, but that wouldn't remove the lawful requirement that the Office of Solicitor General (Ted Olsen) defend the case for the Government, now would it?
That's correct, of course. But the post I was answering said that Ashcroft will have no choice but to defend the Campaign Finance "Reform" Bill (assuming Pres. Bush signs it), since that's his job. I simply pointed out that he does have a choice -- he could refuse to abandon his principles, stepping down instead. The same goes for Ted Olson.
Atty. General Ashcroft is more than a lawyer hired to defend an unsavory defendant. He is a political figure, espousing political views, and he has some influence in that regard. So he could make a statement and keep his integrity by resigning.
As you say, even if one or more people do take the extreme step of resigning rather than defending a flawed, un-Consitutional law, somebody will be hired to do the job. And that's fine -- everybody is entitled to an attorney. But is should be a lawyer hired to ferret out the best defense, not a politician whose job is to identify and promote genuinely good ideas for the country (of which this bill is not an example).
Interesting scenario -- I like it.
Mark Levin is terrific, but he does not have the right temperament for this case at the US Supremes.
Everyone should keep in mind the jurisdiction in which this final battle will be fought. Starr has superb experience in federal courts, especially the Supreme Court.
However, this is no longer about pr or media relations. This is about killing this law by having it ruled unconstitutional. The justices will not be swayed by pr either way.
Starr has a superb legal record before the US Supreme Court. This is the only venue that matters now.
I am astonished that freepers do not understand this fact.
Adding an another article update from AP and Jim Abrams.....
Starr Gets in Campaign Finance Fold
Fri Mar 22, 3:06 AM ETBy JIM ABRAMS, Associated Press Writer
WASHINGTON (AP) - In a case expected to move quickly to the Supreme Court, former Whitewater Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr and a group of prominent election law attorneys will argue that campaign finance legislation passed by Congress is unconstitutional.
Sen. Mitch McConnell (news, bio, voting record), the chief opponent of campaign spending limits and the likely lead plaintiff in the case, announced his legal team Thursday. A day earlier, the Senate passed and sent to President Bush (news - web sites) the most extensive changes in campaign finance law in a quarter-century. Starr, who investigated the Whitewater and Monica Lewinsky cases that led to the impeachment of President Clinton (news - web sites), will be joined by Floyd Abrams, a well-known First Amendment lawyer, and Kathleen Sullivan, dean of the Stanford Law School.
"These are perilous waters into which the Republic has now sailed," Starr said at a news conference with McConnell, R-Ky.
"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."
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.
Sen. John McCain (news, bio, voting record), R-Ariz., the chief sponsor of the legislation with Sen. Russ Feingold (news, bio, voting record), said he was confident the bill "will stand on its merits."
Feingold, D-Wis., said supporters would assemble a legal team, but that the Justice Department (news - web sites) would have the primary responsibility for defending the measure once it becomes law.
Bush has said the legislation is flawed but that he would sign it.
McConnell and other opponents contend that large portions of the bill violate First Amendment free speech rights by restricting the political spending of individuals and groups.
Their biggest target is a provision that bars the use of unregulated "soft money" in the final 30 days of a primary or 60 days of a general election for the broadcast of "issue ads" that mention a candidate by name, often with the purpose of attacking him.
Supporters say anyone can run issue ads as long as they use highly regulated and limited contributions known as "hard money." Under the legislation, the most an individual can contribute in hard money to a candidate per election would be $2,000, double the current ceiling.
A larger issue is the ban on the hundreds of millions of dollars of "soft money" that the national parties receive from corporations, unions and individuals.
"That issue will be raised in this challenge," Abrams said, adding that it was possible that the court would review the stance it has held in this area since 1976.
In 1976, two years after the last major congressional effort to limit political spending, the high court ruled in Buckley v. Valeo that Congress could set limits on political contributions but that limits on spending violated free speech rights.
The campaign finance bill, sponsored in the House by Reps. Christopher Shays, R-Conn., and Martin Meehan, D-Mass., would go into effect on Nov. 6, the day after this year's congressional elections.
McConnell said that his legal team would also include 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, and Washington election lawyer Jan Baran.
He said other corporations, unions and interest groups that oppose the bill are also expected to join him as plaintiffs.
I do agree that Starr is very good in the Supreme Court venue - and so is Olson. This should be interesting.
Is this ridiculous logic or what? Mark my words Bush not vetoing this bill will be a political mistake. The Supreme Court is going to slam the provisions down worse that the Fla. Supreme Court over the election. Mr. and Mrs. America may extract hide from some of the proponents of this bill when they realize the hoax these jerks were perpetuating. I hope McCain, Feingold et all are thrown out of office after the Supremes bitch slap them. I for one can hardly wait.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.