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.
Who better to make the arguments than someone on our side ?
The politicans look like they have tried to do something about CFR when really all they have done is come away with the ceiling raised on hard money, alot of lawyers make money and a name for themselves, and politicians get to roll back legislation, that was like pulling teeth to get passed in the first place, when the limits were first enacted.
If the parts that I think will be struck ARE, in fact, struck, the bill will be a gold mine for the GOP.
Somebody pass the Rolaids.....
The politicans look like they have tried to do something about CFR when really all they have done is come away with the ceiling raised on hard money, alot of lawyers make money and a name for themselves, and politicians get to roll back legislation, that was like pulling teeth to get passed in the first place, when the limits were first enacted.
I can think of no better example of congressional/executive/judicial "sausage-making".
During the Monica scandals, I don't think Starr lost a court case, especially when it came to those parts that went to SCOTUS.
IOW, he didn't lose in court of a law, he lost in the court of public opinion.
Tell me which cases Starr has lost in a court of law, especially SCOTUS.
Try this perspective: A somewhat high-profile case that is sure to get substantial media attention(especially with all the howling and moaning that will go on after it is ruled unconstitutional), where Bush compromised with the Dems and is now defending something he isn't 100% happy with. The key sentence to me was about Ashcroft assuring that the Administration would defend the law. Sounds reminiscent of the confirmation hearings regarding if he would defend abortion laws. So by signing the bill and taking the position of defending it(with Ashcroft high-profile), this will be a visible display to the public that Bush and Ashcroft will enforce the laws(sadly ironic, eh?) irregardless of his personal views. Attempts to gain the trust of pro-abortion soccer moms in the Northeastern suburbs, defuses some of the 'evil' stereotype of his conservative appointments, yet low-risk in that the USSC will likely rule the worst parts unconstitutional.
Could this be part of the administration's thinking?
A nice guy, but I'm still not sure if he was merely naive or a shill for a cover-up. He was so mealy mouthed and non-committal during the whole time he was a prosecutor I wondered whose side he was on. Either way, he gets a vote of no confidence from me.
The media and the Dems will have a field day with this one. I can hear them getting revved up now. He is a figure that generates a stereotype that will kill this whole effort. Since I can't believe anyone could be stupid enough to have him as the lead in anything this important, I have to conclude that this is by design. If so, it will soon be time for the Second American Revolution.
You do realize exactly HOW the government works, don't you?
The leaders of the GOP couldn't find their own butts with a flashlights. I surely wouldnt' admit Tom Delay was a hero of mine.
Really? I highly doubt it. People could care less about the machinations about a boring court case. No Monica, no thong, no Presidency hanging in the balance, etc. etc.
BTW, can you tell me which cases Starr has actually lost in a court of law.
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.