Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Ken Starr to lead court battle against CFR
AP VIA Yahoo.com ^ | 03-21-02 | By JIM ABRAMS

Posted on 03/21/2002 8:01:13 PM PST by 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.


TOPICS: Breaking News; Constitution/Conservatism; Government; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: campaignfinance; cfr; kennethstarr; kenstarr
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 181 next last
To: Cloud William
ROFL
41 posted on 03/21/2002 10:05:03 PM PST by MissAmericanPie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

Comment #42 Removed by Moderator

To: takenoprisoner
Your reputation preceeds you. You are a well known fascist like totalitarian in this camp.

I always know that I have hit a nerve when the vitriol flows like wine.

BTW, can you name the cases Ken Starr has lost in a court of law?

43 posted on 03/21/2002 10:08:14 PM PST by Dane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: Dane
That would be none, Bob.
44 posted on 03/21/2002 10:09:46 PM PST by Howlin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: MissAmericanPie
Well, I will admit to be openly optomistic about it. Thanks for the slap back to reality. :-)
45 posted on 03/21/2002 10:10:54 PM PST by Howlin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: Dane
BTW, can you name the cases Ken Starr has lost in a court of law?

And in what court praytell sir Dane will this be settled in the end? The Supreme court? What year? Give me your best shot Dane.

46 posted on 03/21/2002 10:15:13 PM PST by takenoprisoner
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: Dane
Well, McGee vs. GM wasn't one of Starr's finest hours. That was in a court of law. But, I'll grant you, not in the Lewinsky/Whitewater probes.

So Starr won some minor skirmishes in court. The big stuff slid right on by.

Our Republic was at stake. He was indifferent. We got two more years of Clinton, terrorist pardons,the illegal war in Yugoslavia, and ultimately 9/11 as a result. Starr wasn't the only one involved, but his half hearted conduct of his investigations certainly helped one of the worst Presdients of the US to avoid facing justice.

Why do the same things and expect a different result?

IF he gets CFR defeated by SCOTUS, I'll be happy to acclaim him. But I'm not holding my breath.

47 posted on 03/21/2002 10:19:11 PM PST by exit82
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: Howlin,Dane
That would be none, Bob.

Well let's don't continue to be coy here. Give us a list of the ones he has won.

48 posted on 03/21/2002 10:19:38 PM PST by takenoprisoner
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: takenoprisoner
Give us a list of the ones he has won.

Don't try to push it off on me. If you don't know, say so.

49 posted on 03/21/2002 10:24:47 PM PST by Howlin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: Dane,Howlin
Oh and while you are searching...hope you don't miss this one. Ken Starr loses
50 posted on 03/21/2002 10:26:02 PM PST by takenoprisoner
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: Howlin
I did say so. See my 50 lier.
51 posted on 03/21/2002 10:27:31 PM PST by takenoprisoner
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: the bottle let me down
Bush is going to sign it because by doubling the maximum hard money limit, he will double his war chest in 2004 without finding a single new contributor.
52 posted on 03/21/2002 10:28:18 PM PST by Nashvol
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: takenoprisoner
Yep, he lost one. I didn't say he was perfect, but in general he has won a lot more cases in court than he has lost, those are the facts

But you have an axe to grind and it shows.

53 posted on 03/21/2002 10:31:42 PM PST by Dane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: Dane,Howlin
Yep, he lost one. I didn't say he was perfect, but in general he has won a lot more cases in court than he has lost, those are the facts
But you have an axe to grind and it shows.

My axe is justice and proving liars to be liars. So be it. You two are gagged and bagged.

54 posted on 03/21/2002 10:35:40 PM PST by takenoprisoner
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

Comment #55 Removed by Moderator

To: takenoprisoner
My axe is justice and proving liars to be liars. So be it. You two are gagged and bagged.

Ooooh, the keyboard commando meets out justice, that will show me. /sarcasm

56 posted on 03/21/2002 10:38:46 PM PST by Dane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: takenoprisoner
Re: # 54: Your screen name is really apt!
57 posted on 03/21/2002 10:43:34 PM PST by exit82
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: exit82
Well we are so lucky to have a legal 'expert' posting here....Ken Starr will kill this turkey and it will not be close...wonder if Bush`s team knew about McConnells legal team? explains somethings
58 posted on 03/21/2002 10:47:51 PM PST by bybybill
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: Colonel_Flagg
With Ken Starr in charge, HOW can we lose?
59 posted on 03/21/2002 10:48:17 PM PST by eccl1212
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: bybybill
I don't want to misread your post--but are you being sarcastic? Who is the legal expert you are referring to?
60 posted on 03/21/2002 10:52:59 PM PST by exit82
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 181 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson