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.
Correction: H.R.2356.
foreverfree
Here's a little fact to consider.
Starr allowed the Whitehouse to keep the FBI files for YEARS after he told the public it was illegal for the Whitehouse to have those files. He never said one word when the Whitehouse and FBI LIED that the files were returned. We only found out about this when Ray admitted it during a live interview on TV towards the end of Clinton's 8 years. So is Starr HONEST enough to trust? Could Starr perhaps be in the democRAT camp? Afterall, Starr was the #2 name on the list of people suggested by Clinton for Independent Counsel (after Fiske's). Do you think Clinton would put a name on such a list that he didn't have some measure of control over? Does someone have Starr's FBI file and might that file be used to influence his "performance" in this case?
In fact, wasn't Starr about to return to academia (that hotbed of liberalism) when Monica surfaced? But did Starr "discover" Monica, or did she surface because questions were finally be raised about Ron Brown's death several years earlier? Perhaps Clinton knew he needed a distraction that would keep the eyes off Brown while he straightened that matter out (with a few judicious bribes to black "leaders" like Jackson)? What better distraction than all the sorbid details of an affair with an intern? And surely he knew that even if the matter reached the Senate, his democRAT pals would never convict over a little thing like his sexual piccadillos and with the FBI files (that Starr let him keep) he could blackmail a few key Republicans (like Trent "your not dumping this garbage on us" Lott). Monica could be spun and controlled. But Brown, a MASS MURDER, could not. Are you sure we can trust Starr?
CLUE: I know that. I don't have to like it in this case, but I know that.
Obviously, Ashcroft must do what he has to do. I am just disappointed that things have come to this point. I'm not a Bush basher but I do believe he's 180 degrees away from where he needs to be pointing on this issue.
Okay?
Also, I like Ken Starr and think he's gotten a bad rap.
Be patient. Watch him work. I hope you'll be pleasantly surprised.
I was just listening to Rush Limbaugh, and he said that there is an exception to that limit: if one's opponent is a rich guy financing his campaign with his own money, the hard money limit of the first candidate is raised to $6000.
I haven't read the legislation, but it seems to me that
if a candidate enlisted a rich dummy candidate (either in his party for the primary election or in one of the minor parties for the general election), then he could inflate his hard money contribution limit to $6000.
Neither General Ashcroft nor General Olson should be required to defend a law that I'm reasonably certain neither one approves of or considers to be constitutional. There will be plenty of lawyers in the case on the other side, representing People for the (Un)American Way, for instance, who will mount a full defense of the law.
Congressman Billybob
Alas! You appear to have missed the point of my prior remark. I was not complaining about how rapidly the courts might move in this matter; my concern was the speed at which Ken Starr moved---at least as evidenced in his procedures with Willie the Slick.
If Starr moved any slower he would have gone backwards.
The results in this case do not depend on Ken Starr. I said before, I repeat it now. IF WE DO NOT GET THIS LAW THROWN OUT I WILL RESIGN FROM THE BAR OF THE US SUPREME COURT. I am putting not just my reputation for accuracy on the line, I am putting my profession on the line.
And for those who think this might drag on for years, it will be decided in less than six months from the trial court decision. Since the challengers are "filling right after President Bush signs the bill" that means a decision possibly BEFORE the November election, but certainly early in 2003.
I was involved as a low-level lawyer in the first challenge to federal election law, Buckley v. Valeo, 1976. The Supreme Court in that one tossed out the law six months after the challenge was filed in trial court. Been there, done that, bought the T-shirt.
I'm not guessing or speculating. I'm speaking truth here, based on decades of experience. You can take that to the bank. This law is toast.
Congressman Billybob
I hope so too, Howlin. Also, I hope you don't take my earlier note as a flame. It sure wasn't intended to be. I try to take Reagan's First Commandment as seriously as I can.
Actually, this is not true. The Supreme Court has made decisions ratifying the right of Congress to regulate political money. The court found that limits on campaign contributions are indeed constitutional because they are crafted to negate the inevitable corruption that results when politicians rely too much on money.
Billybob
What's missing is the fact that there is nothing there saying they have promised to do a good job defending said POS law.
Notwithstanding the above, the opinion in your last post is one I can respect. I just differ in my view of the same events from yours.
Well I tend to find that folks who say that 'Everyone lies about sex', or 'Republicans just hate Clinton' or 'You love Ken Starr', have been influenced by the work of James Carville somewhere along the line. Perhaps, 'in thrall to' is a little strong'
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.