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.
When I find a good target organization, I'll look up this thread and give you a jingle.
Yes. Hard money, raised in $2000 increments will full disclosure of who contributed can be used. This would, however, impose large burdens-record keeping, the need for a separate account and fund raising, FEC registration, the need to disclose membership and contributors-on third parties who have never had to deal with those sorts of things.
Congress passed the law. That creates a presumption that a majority of the House and the Senate think that it is constitutional. The President is going to sign it. That will create a presumption that the President thinks that its constitutional. Therefore, the AG and the solicitor general have a duty to make any non-frivolous argument that may exist to defend the constitutionality of the law. That's the DOJ's job. Like it or not, there are non-frivolous arguments, based on the Buckley decision, that CFR is constitutional.
One of the many things that Reno's DOJ did wrong was to refuse to defend the Congressional response to the Miranda decision even though there were non-frivolous arguments in its favor. Just another reason why Reno was the worst AG in history.
Once again, the problem here is that Bush shouldn't sign the bill. GWB needs to spend some political capital, but Rove won't let him.
It's not the Olson thinks that the law is constitutional. In fact, I'd guess that there are parts of the law that he firmly believes are unconstitutional. all that has happened is that Ashcroft and Olson have said that they will do their jobs, which include defending the law. To quote myself:
Congress passed the law. That creates a presumption that a majority of the House and the Senate think that it is constitutional. The President is going to sign it. That will create a presumption that the President thinks that its constitutional. Therefore, the AG and the solicitor general have a duty to make any non-frivolous argument that may exist to defend the constitutionality of the law. That's the DOJ's job. Like it or not, there are non-frivolous arguments, based on the Buckley decision, that CFR is constitutional.
People have to remember that, as attorneys, Ashcroft and Olson have a duty to represent their client even if they think that their client should lose. As long as they aren't making frivolous arguments, and I'm sure that they won't, it is their job to defend the law.
Agreed, which is why I find it so disturbing when good Freepers like yourself start repeating 'common knowledge' about men like Ken Starr which was invented by men such as Carville. He is like a disease, he creates the infection, and it infects the whole population, including people who despise him. I expect he is laughing himself silly seeing conservatives fighting each other based on a lie which he and his created.
I am particularly disturbed because blaming the defeat of impeachment on Starr is and has been used as a way of deflecting some of the blame from the Senate GOP, which is where it belongs. I don't feel like relieving Trent Lott of the blame for this, for the deal which gave control of the Senate to the Demcrats, or anything else.
A lot of folks have forgotten that under the rules in force up until the current Congress, committee chairman and control of the Senate was made for 2 year terms. If the actual majority changed in the Senate, as it did on occasion, that left the old chamber and committee structure as it was set up by the old majority. If Lott had not changed the rule, Pickering would have been sworn in the the Court of Appeals, and numerous other confirmations would have been made. GOP legislation would now be coming out of the Senate committees, which would still have Republican majorities. I don't want Lott given cover for his offenses by diverting the blame to an honest man like Starr, defeated by the wussies and RINOs in the Senate.
I never said that he favored the bill, only that he will be fighting in the SCOTUS to defend it. In #168 the bottle let me down gives you a good and succinct statement on this.
Naturally, and I have not studied this as much as you have. I have enough trust in the national conservatives activists, including the ACU, the NRA, as well as a non-RINO like Senator McConnell to accept their judgement on things like this.
We really have little choice, but to hiss from the sidelines, since this is no longer a matter of politics, but of maneuvering by DC-based activists, and especially of law suits. I see our position as being informed passengers on a ship in a stormy sea, we must trust the officers and crew, or give up in despair.
Also, I apologize for the "tone" of my response #155, to you. The ship we're on isn't that big.
I know, and appreciate your comments, I was feeling more than a little snappish yesterday myself. As for the life jacket, if you've looked at my homepage you know that I think it likely we are going to need a lot more than that, and in the not too distant future too!
So, from 15 minutes after the White House "he'll sign it" memo was posted on FreeRepublic, I have focused my efforts on what will go into my brief to the Supreme Court asking it to strike this law. That's all that stands between us and a cripppling of the First Amendment, So that's where all my efforts are going.
Billybob
Are you also planning to file an amicus brief during the initial hearing? It seems to me that this is chance to challenge as much of hte law as possible. The Supreme Court would presumably limit the scope of its grant of certorari.
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.