Posted on 03/01/2007 8:30:39 AM PST by CWW
PRESS RELEASE
February 23, 2007
Contact: James Bopp, Jr.
Phone: 812-232-2434; Fax 812-235-3685
jboppjr@aol.com
FEC and McCain File Briefs Opposing Grassroots Lobbying by Wisconsin Right to Life
Today, two briefs were filed in the U.S. Supreme Court in the consolidated cases of FEC v. Wisconsin Right to Life (No. 06-969) and McCain v. Wisconsin Right to Life (No. 06-970). One brief was filed by the Solicitor General for the Federal Election Commission. The other was filed on behalf of Sen. John McCain, and other members of Congress, by lawyers from the "campaign finance reform" lobby.
Both appeals arose from the same case, WRTL v. FEC, but there are two appeals and two briefs because Sen. McCain, and other sponsors of McCain-Feingold (the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 or "BCRA"), chose to intervene in the case, thus putting their personal weight (and their lawyers' efforts) against WRTL's grass roots lobbying efforts. WRTL will respond in the U.S. Supreme Court to these two briefs on or before March 23.
WRTL involves an as-applied challenge to the McCain-Feingold "electioneering communication" prohibition, which bars corporations and labor unions from broadcasting ads mentioning the name of a federal candidate within 30 days of a primary and 60 days of a general election. In 2004, WRTL wanted to do grass roots lobbying ads about upcoming votes in Congress and claimed that the electioneering communication prohibition could not be constitutionally applied to its grass roots lobbying ads. On December 21, 2006, the district court agreed.
When the McCain-Feingold bill was proposed, its sponsors always promised that "genuine issue ads" (including grassroots lobbying) would not be banned. For example, on March 23, 2001, Sen. Jeffords (who introduced the Snowe-Jeffords amendment that became the electioneering communication prohibition) declared on the Senate floor that the prohibition will not affect the ability of any organization to urge grassroots contacts with lawmakers on upcoming votes. The Snowe-Jeffords provisions do not stop the ability of any organization to urge their lawmakers on upcoming issues or votes. That is one of the biggest distortions of the Snowe-Jeffords provisions. Any organization can, and should be able to, use their grassroots communications to urge citizens to contact their lawmakers. Under the Snowe-Jeffords provision, any organization still can undertake this most important task.
Yet Sen. McCain now denounces the district court's ruling that WRTL's grass roots lobbying ads are not banned by McCain-Feingold.
Sen. McCain intervened in WRTL to stop WRTL from broadcasting ads asking people in Wisconsin to contact Senators Feingold and Kohl and urge them to vote against the burgeoning filibusters of President Bush's judicial nominees. Sen. McCain also opposed WRTL's effort to get court approval to broadcast a 2006 ad urging Senators Feingold and Kohl to oppose efforts to halt finalization of the Child Custody Protection Act ("CCPA"), which had passed by overwhelming margins in both houses of Congress but was prevented by parliamentary maneuvering from finally becoming law. The CCPA would have prohibited taking a minor across state lines for an abortion without parental consent or knowledge. Senator Kohl had voted for passage of the CCPA, but during the prohibition period, when WRTL was unable to effectively grassroots lobby, he switched sides.
Sen. McCain, and other members of Congress, also intervened in a companion case, Christian Civic League of Maine v. FEC, which is also now on appeal to the Supreme Court after being dismissed as moot. The CCLM case was conferenced by the Supreme Court on February 16, but the Court has issued no order concerning the disposition of the case. It is assumed that the Court is holding the case for disposition after the decision in the WRTL case. In the CCLM case, Sen. McCain intervened to try to stop CCLM from broadcasting ads in support of the federal Marriage Protection Amendment, which defined marriage as between one man and one woman.
In both WRTL and CCLM, the efforts of the FEC and Sen. McCain were effective in gagging these citizen groups from broadcasting their ads when they could have made a difference on the issue involved. Notably, the district court has now held that WRTL's anti-filibuster ads were constitutionally protected, which does not change the fact that WRTL forever lost the opportunity to broadcast them when they might have made a difference.
James Bopp, Jr., lead counsel for both WRTL and CCLM, states: "The Framers of the Constitution would be appalled to know that incumbent politicians have passed a law to silence the people from effectively lobbying them about upcoming votes in Congress." "Further, it is unseemly," he adds, "for members of Congress to intervene in cases to silence the people from talking about them. This is particularly troubling when the grassroots lobbying was about the important issues of confirming President Bush's judicial nominees, protecting minors from abortion, and protecting marriage. And it is troubling that Sen. McCain and his allies now denounce a court ruling protecting grassroots lobbying, when they themselves assured the American people that McCain-Feingold did not ban such efforts."
McCain-Feingold was passed in 2002. In 2003, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the law on its face, in McConnell v. FEC. In 2006, the Supreme Court held, in the first appeal of WRTL v. FEC, that the McConnell decision did not preclude as-applied challenges to that law and remanded the case for a decision on WRTL's as-applied challenge for grass roots lobbying. On remand, the district court ruled in WRTL's favor.
The briefs in FEC v. WRTL and McCain v. WRTL are available on the Supreme Court's website, http://www.supremecourtus.gov and at www.jamesmadisoncenter.org. Oral argument is set for 10:00 a.m. on April 25th. A decision is expected by late June, the end of the Court's present term.
James Bopp, Jr. has a national campaign finance and election law practice with Bopp, Coleson & Bostrom. He is General Counsel for the James Madison Center for Free Speech.
Who cares in McCain is or is not pro-life?
Care that he is soft on border enforcement. Care that he wants shamnesty for illegal aliens. Care that he'll subvert the US Constitution. Care that he will sell out America to remain the darling of the press.
If 20 million illegal aliens get citizenship, you can kiss the United States goodbye. Care about that.
Neither McCain or Rudy are pro life.
McCain is finished, when you say soldiers lives are wasted in any war, you are finished, shame on him, whatever his excuse will not be enough, GOODBYE and GOODNIGHT.
McCain is everything to everyone. He has been quoted to saying "What is wrong with sucking up to everyone?".
McPain, though a decorated vet, shares in the pathetic, Murtha-esque guilt that he somehow committed a crime by his role in the Vietnam war.
He is done.
You cannot seriously argue that there is no harm to the pro-life movement if it cannot point out the pro-abortion position of candidates during the middle of a campaign.
Which isn't saying much at all.
I live in Arizona, born and raised, and my family and I know McCain very well. I seriously dislike Hillary Clinton. I don't think there are words in any known spoken language that could possible describe the disdain I have for that sow but I'd vote for her before I would McCain.
Probably true. When analyzing the importance of his statements perhaps some FReepers are asking, “Who is James Bopp, Jr.?”
Jim Bopp is a very prominent attorney and leading figure in the pro-life movement. His practice of law emphasizes the biomedical issues of abortion, foregoing and withdrawing life-sustaining medical treatment and assisted suicide, not-for-profit corporate and tax law, and campaign finance and election law. Bopp is a leading opponent of the McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform law.
Many hundreds of pro-life activists have used Bopp’s legal arguments and memos in their lobbying efforts and work to draft legislation. Bopp has given speeches at many pro-life events and has been an editor for multiple publications.
Did he make the "lives are wasted" comment on Letterman last night? Sad. And, very surprising and disappointing coming from him.
Did you actually watch it? McCain praised our troops calling them the bravest and finest Americans. I can assure you the phrase "lives are wasted" never came out of the man's mouth.
"Americans are very frustrated, and they have every right to be," McCain said Wednesday on CBS' "Late Show With David Letterman." "We've wasted a lot of our most precious treasure, which is American lives."
McCain, who repeated his assertion that U.S. troops must remain in Iraq rather than withdrawing early, made the "wasted" remark after confirming to Letterman what has been clear for at least a year or more — that he's in the running for the 2008 Republican nomination.
I wish he had said it a different way.
He heroically pledged to maintain Massachusetts' status quo as a radical pro-abortion state, while praising Roe v. Wade and maintaining his unwavering support for the legal right to abortion.
And then he decided to run for president.
Massachusetts pro-life groups found out what Romney was like in 2002, when he sucked up to them during the primary and then sought the endorsement of radical pro-abortion group NARAL in the general election.
I guess you could say Romney is consistent: he'll always say whatever he thinks you want to hear.
Romney took the pro-life position on every abortion-related issue he faced while governor:
-He vetoed an emergency contraception bill and offered a compelling case for life in the process.
-He fought efforts to advance embryonic stem cell research in Massachusetts, despite overwhelming opposition.
-He pledged to veto any effort to expand access to RU-486, the abortion pill.
-He has faced constant ridicule from pro-abortion organizations for refusing to give in to their demands.
-He actively promoted abstinence education programs in Massachusetts’ schools. The abstinence movement and the pro-life movement work hand-in-hand to reduce the number of teen pregnancies and to promote true sexual health to America’s youth. Link
I am sure it sounds worse in writing.
"-He vetoed an emergency contraception bill and offered a compelling case for life in the process. "
- A conservative activist in Massachusetts says he is very disappointed by Governor Mitt Romney's decision on the state's emergency contraception law. The new law, which takes effect this week, will require all hospitals to provide emergency contraception to rape victims.
Romney had originally stated that Catholic hospitals and other private hospitals could be exempt from the emergency contraception law. However, last week he announced that no hospital, whether religious or private, would be exempt.
.....
Romney had planned to support a conscience clause to allow religious and private hospitals to refuse to give out emergency contraception drugs. But after a commentary criticizing his stance appeared in the Boston Globe newspaper, the Massachusetts governor did an about-face and declared that all medical facilities across the state must comply with the new law.
....
Romney knew very well that he did not have the votes to keep the emergency contraception bill from passing, Camenker contends, but he says the governor still vetoed the legislation as a means of political posturing and is now simply pandering to pro-abortion forces.
How to be a spineless pro-abortion weasel.
Commentary before his emergency contraception "suck up to conservatives" veto:
In 2002, when he was a candidate for the office he now holds, he answered ''yes" to a question posed by Planned Parenthood about his support of ''efforts to increase access to emergency contraception." In the past few weeks, however, as he has repositioned himself to appeal to a more conservative national audience, he has declined to restate that commitment.
What a slimeball!
All this hand-wringing over Romney's conversion is getting so old. Someone mentioned a tagline they saw on FreeRepublic yesterday ( I wish I knew whose it was so I could give them credit):
"The Pro-Life movement is about making converts. Why not welcome someone who has converted"?
I love that! I don't understand those who reject the converted. We hope and pray for conversion and then when someone does convert in words and actions like Romney, he is rejected and his conversion is deemed too recent, too little, too late etc....
Sadly, if this course is maintained, we will most likely end up with someone who has not converted at all.
Nice way to avoid discussing Romney's detailed history of converting and reconverting and reconverting and changing and modifying his political stances just in his short political career.
Romney managed to reneg on commitments to pro-life Catholics AND pro-abortionists in Massachusetts just on that one issue alone!
If you will believe a campaign season conversion from a man who has proven his word cannot be trusted, then you are simply choosing to turn a blind eye rather than using your God-given faculties of discernment.
"The Pro-Life movement is about making converts. Why not welcome someone who has converted"?
What I'm saying is accuse him of being anti-first amendment if you like , but not anti-life. If he changed his standard on the campaign finance, just to support a cause he liked, he'd be a hypocrite.
I can accept the fact that Romney has had a conversion on the pro-life issue and he is certainly the candidate I'm rooting for at the moment. But you cannot seriously say he has the best pro-life "record". Platform? Yes. Record? Hardly!
That's fine and dandy that you hate McCain more than Hillary. What does that have to do with his voting record on abortion?
Thank you. I didn't know that. So his pro-life platform is as good as Romney's and his track record on the issue is better. He still isn't my first choice. But, of the candidates with a realistic shot at the nomination, he's my second choice.
Certainly. If you're talking about what he said in 1994, then yeah, he did say that he would protect a woman's right to choose. However, if you look at what he actually did as Governor, it was 100% pro-life. He even vetoed an embryonic stem cell research bill. Is that not good enough?
You're welcome! I pinged you some more threads in post 35.
I think you mean 2002, when he was trying to win NARAL's endorsement and pandering to liberals in the general election in Massachusetts, rather than pandering to pro-lifers in the GOP presidential primary.
You don't need to go all the way back to 1994 -- try 2002! Now, I firmly believe that he can be a good pro-life president. But, if you look at the track records of the candidates with a prayer, McCain is the one who has been consistently pro-life. That is my only point.
Thanks for the pings. It'll be interesting to see how conservatives shake out on this one.
McCain is hell bent on destroying the Constitution.
Hmmm.... 1978 to 2000, that's a good 22 years.
Mitt Romney has proudly proclaimed that he was consistent in his position supporting legal abortion from 1970 through at LEAST 2002, more like 2004, when he decided to run for president -- which was 2 years ago.
"I had never thought about the issue," HENRY HYDE 1968 discussing an abortion bill in the Illinois State House The bill led him to study the matter and consult abortion opponents. ...He decided to oppose the bill and later authored the “Hyde Amendment.”
Mitt Romney thought about the issue all his adult life and very publicly proclaimed his support for legal abortion in both 1994 and 2002. He even criticized Ted Kennedy for once being pro-life. Then one day, right around the time he decided to run for president, he switched his well-considered opinion to something completely different.
RAMESH PONNURU of National Review and author of PARTY OF DEATH said, “I remembers as a teenager "not wanting to be a pro-lifer."
Mitt Romney was not a teenager in 2002, in 1994, or even in 1970 when he claims to have adopted the pro-abortion position.
It's kind of pathetic those were the best examples you could come up with.
What record? He's all over the place which makes my case even stronger.
Want a real conservative in the White House? Vote for either Tancredo or Hunter. To vote for anyone else already in the race is either a vote to sell out our nation to the globalists or a compromise. I can't speak for you but I'm tired of settling for the lesser of two evils. Evil is evil. The degree is irrelevant.
McCain is pure evil!
Do you have a record of changing your positions based on what electorate you're appealing to at the time? Are you running for president?
Nice try at avoiding debate by trying to make it into some personal offense to you that anyone would disbelieve a 60-year-old public official switching his long-held position right before running for president.
Why can't you people address the issues honestly?
The pro-life groups aren't happy with him either. Why? Because he lied to both groups at different times.
SEN. JOHN McCAIN: THE ULTIMATE "RHINESTONE HERO"
SEN. JOHN McCAIN: THE ULTIMATE "RHINESTONE HERO" Part II
U.S. Sen. John McCain is no War Hero
John McCain: The Manchurian Candidat
McCain Is Booed by Labor Activists
McCain Rides to Kerry's Rescue: "John Kerry is Not Weak on Defense" (Today Show alert)
John McCain SCREAMS AT 9/11 FSA MEMBERS FOR OPPOSING HIS BILL TO GIVE AMNESTY FOR ILLEGALS
A number of articles on McCain. (some the same as above)
McCain/Soros by Rabbi Areyh Spero
Soros' "Reform" (an article about Soros‘ instrumental hand in McCain/Feingold)
Not Child‘s Play [McCain/Schumer bill could effect FR?]
McCain's Letter (McCain aligns with Global Enviro activists)
The Turning Point on Global Warming (McCain and Lieberman Op-Ed Alert)
Climate bill sets stage for debate (Sens. McCain, Obama, and Lieberman join forces)
McCain Looked into Caucusing with Democrats
McCain Still Disliked by Fiscal Conservatives (Club For Growth)
John McCain Goes Left for Money
Sens. Snowe, Collins to head Maine exploratory committee for McCain
Double Talk Express. McCain in his own words. VIDEO
More YOUTUBE - McCain On Abortion (UH OH! YouTube Has a Video of Him in 1999)
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.