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.
Wink wink. Nudge nudge.
Houston, we have a problem.
A lot has been said on these threads about the issue of Ashcroft's woes during the nomination hearings, centering on the question of whether or not he'd defend a law he disagreed with, specifically R. V. Wade.
Well, unless I'm missing something, there's a wide gulf between "a law he disagrees with", and "an unconstitutional law".
Is he now going on record saying that he will defend the constitutionality of a law that he understands to be unconstitutional?
If so, my, my, my...
Oh? I'd like to see John Ashcroft's public statement regarding such. The President's own public statement questions the constitutionality of the bill. I'm betting the AG doesn't throw his whole weight behind defending this pile of tripe.
You keep asserting that, but frankly I don't see how your repeated assertion translates to fact.
As far as I'm concerned, his history of dropping the ball on major cases that all known evidence seems to indicate he'd have won in a heartbeat is just as important as your "how many cases he won" rant, if not moreso.
How nice of the 'HOLE, McLame, and the other anti-Constitutionalists to TELL THE SUPREME COURT WHAT IT CAN AND CANNOT DO to the law. I'll laugh my @$$ off if they repudiate that particular "clause" FIRST as Unconstitutional, then set ahead ripping the entire thing to shreds. :)
That would be nice. I was the plaintiff in a suit where the first order of business was to attack a restrictive clause in a contract that dictated terms under which a suit could be filed. Needless to say the terms were entirely to the benefit of the defendant, and entirely to the detriment of the plaintiff. So, such things are not entirely unheard of.
That's your opinion and you are entitled to it, but it still doesn't refute the facts that Starr has a good record of winning cases.
Anyone who has the leeway to pick which cases to fight will be able to show off his impressive ratio of "cases won", unless he's got an IQ in the same range as his shoe size.
Oh please get off your high horse. You don't like Starr because he didn't fight the battles you thought he should. Like I said that is your opinion, but your bias cannot get in the way of the facts presented and those facts are that he has an impressive record of winning cases.
Campaign contribution restriction? For whom?
Still if the Supremes speak on this, it will kill it for a long time to come. As it is now, it's like Frankenstein shocked back to life every year.
No, this calls for a top-notch constitutional lawyer, and that is Ken Starr. If you weren't so much in thrall to James Carville, you would remember that.
Yes, he beat them in every case that came to court. You Carville-ites like the rest of us to forget this.
I am not Dane, but the law provides for expedited review, that is to say it will be argued immediately before the highest appellate Court below the SCOTUS. That Court will likely decide by the end of summer this year. Then it will go before the SCOTUS as soon as it starts meeting in October. It might be finished before it even takes effect (after this year's elections), it certainly will be finished before next winter is over.
You can take your meds now!
Besides being a big deal expensive lawyer, he is considered one the the leaders of the free speech left. This case will probably also involve the ACLU, the NRA, and Jay Sekulow, among many others, filing amicus briefs against this unconstitutional nonsense.
I have not heard that he will take any part in this, but remember he is a Democrat and not known as a civil libertarian, so it is likely that he will once again be fighting on the same side as Ted Olsen -- in FAVOR of this abomination. Life is a b-tch, sometimes, isn't it.
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.