Skip to comments.Help Fight Shays-Meehan (CFR)
Posted on 03/23/2002 2:13:25 PM PST by Congressman Billybob
Help Fight Shays-Meehan (CFR)
As many of you know, one of your colleagues, Congressman Billybob (John Armor, Esq., in real life) will file one of the briefs in the US Supreme Court in opposition to Shays-Meehan.
He will file it on behalf of the American Civil Rights Union, which believes in protecting and enforcing the Constitution as written. One of its Advisory Board members is the Hon. Robert Bork.
Click here to visit the ACRU website.
This brief does not depend on your responses to this notice. It will be filed in any event. But all FReepers who wish to play a role in the effort to have Shays-Meehan declared unconstitutional, are invited to contribute what they choose to the ACRU. It is a tax-deductible, legal charity.
All who contribute at least $25 will receive a copy of the Supreme Court brief. Please visit the ACRU site to confirm that their vision of the Constitution is the same as yours, and the same as that of Jim Robinson and FreeRepublic.
Then if you wish to help, mail your checks to:
American Civil Rights Union
3213 Duke Street
Alexandria, VA 22314
Be sure to include your name and address if you wish to receive a copy of the Supreme Court brief. Write "FreeRepublic" on the memo line of your check so we know you responded to this appeal. Include your screen name if you would like to be thanked publicly on this thread. Do NOT send any contributions greater than $100. Reserve such large donations for FreeRepublic.
You will NOT get on any mailing list, snail mail, e-mail, or otherwise, by responding to this request. All information will be kept in strict confidence, unless you include your screen name so you can be thanked on this thread by that name.
By the way, the ACRU was the client for the very successful brief also filed by Congressman Billybob in the Bush/Florida case. The text of that brief was posted on FreeRepublic in December, 2000.
If you have any questions about this message, please contact: firstname.lastname@example.org
Thank you for your consideration of this request for help. (Both Congressman Billybob and the American Civil Rights Union are entirely independent of FreeRepublic. However, this request is being posted with the permission of Jim Robinson.)
Thanks for the interest. And if you can find a way to help. it would be appreciated. There's no hurry, since the brief will not be due in the Supreme Court for at least two months, even if the trial court acts quickly, and the Supreme Court also shortens its normal times to file.
Thank you for reply although I didnt understand a word of it (the ins and outs of it) : ). Anyway, I do have one question. But, but, but -- We can donate to FR through our plastics and this is where I am confused and FR is not commercial. See my confusion? I guess the key words are not sufficiently commercial whatever that means.
Sorry for being a pain. I promise not to bother you anymore.
In cases relying on legal theory, Judge Starr has a very impressive record. At one point he was 23-1 in cases with the Clinton Administration.
Which one was that? Could you make a link please?
LET THE PINGING BEGIN!!!
EVERYONE - Please read this from the March 11 issue of National Review...
Supporters of campaign-finance regulation like to portray themselves as an underfunded, scrappy grassroots coalition. However, a study conducted last year for the American Conservative Union by election-law attorney Cleta Mitchell found that groups dedicated to promoting campaign-finance reform spent over $73 million over the three-year period from 1997 through 1999. By comparison, the Center for Responsive Politics (CRP), one of the most prominent campaign-finance-reform organizations, lists total political spending by the "mortgage banking" industry at under $12 million, and by "Health Services and HMOs" at under $14 million, for the four-year period from 1997 through 2000. Even the dreaded drug manufacturers contributed just $28 million over that four-year period, or 40 percent of that spent in just three years by groups promoting campaign-finance regulation. Yet the campaign-finance regulators always portray these industries as colossally and harmfully big spenders.
Later in the same article you find this tidbit...
Assuming it becomes law, the bill will not end the influence of money in politics, but instead will drive such influence further underground. A glimpse of the future may have occurred at a dinner last October that raised $800,000 for the Brennan Center, a pro-reform group. Co-chaired by pro-reform senators Hillary Clinton and Charles Schumer, and featuring Sen. John McCain, the dinner was underwritten by corporate donors, who were solicited to attend. Sponsors included over two dozen large law firms with Washington lobbying practices, plus such corporations as Coca-Cola, Philip Morris, and, naturally, Enron.
This National Review Article was entitled, "The Gaggers and Gag-making - Hypocrisy among the campaign-finance reformers" and was written by Bradley A. Smith, a member of the Federal Election Commission.
Thanks for all your efforts, BillyBob!
May I call your attention to a suggestion I made on this thread? The idea is simply to persist in referring to the bill as "the unconstitutional CFR." This should help make people aware that the bill is indeed unconstitutional.
Jim, would it be possible to have a new category, "Opposing the unconstitutional CFR" on the FR donations page?
Folks, please do what you can to help the Congressman in this endeavor. Our (christians and conservatives) very existence in our own communities is on the line here and we really do need to get the ad prohibitions in this bill if not the whole bill killed.
PS I hope you enjoy your vacation.
This is a good thing for your local chapter to get involved in.
However, a contribution from overseas, even in the form of a check written in francs, for instance, can be handled by an American bank. A draft in dollars is preferred, but the other can be accepted.
Sorry for confusing you with my attempt at humor.
With that said, Starr is a former Circuit Court judge and a former Solicitor General of the US. As the poster just after you noted. Starr was 23-1 against the Clintons in court cases. He is one of the best appelate lawyers in the nation, and that's where the ultimate decision on Shays-Meehan will be made -- on appeal, in the Supreme Court.
With that said, the prior Supreme Court cases, about 24 of them, are so solidly against portions of Shays-Meehan that a blind lawyer with Tourette's Syndrome could get this law knocked out. Plus there will be about 100 lawyers in the case against this law, me included. Every one of us will give it our best shot to drive a wooden stake through the heart of Shays-Meehan.
WE WILL WIN THIS CASE. I feel so strongly about it that I have pledged to resign my 26-year membership in the Bar of the US Supreme Court if we don't win this case. For the first time ever, I have put not only my reputation but my profession on the line in a single case.
The key to this case is not Ken Starr or any other lawyer. It is the two dozen cases already decided by the Supreme Court which they would have to reverse in order to uphold Shays-Meehan. The Court reverses its own cases very rarely, and very cautioously. It has never in its history reversed a line of two dozen prior cases.
Does that help?
You know that's not necessarily a bad thing.
President Bush is gambling that Shays-Meehan will be struck down by the Supreme Court, and even more importantly, that it will be struck BEFORE the November election. If that happens, the issue is not only defanged for this election, it is reversed. Daschle & comapny will be placed on the defensive before the public. "Why did you push so hard to pass a bill that would have stolen the First Amendment rights of American citizens?"
I disagree with the decision that the Bush team made. However, I thoroughly understand it. I would never have gambled with the Constitution.
But if the Court strikes CFR before the election, and the Democrats suffer serious defeats in both the House and Senate, the Bush team's calculus will be vindicated. Furthermore, with the Senate then in Republican hands, there will be no more debacles like the political assassination of Judge Pickering, (Keep in mind that also means better Justices on the Supreme Court, when President Bush gets his opportunites to make appointments there.)
I'm sure my comment does not change your mind on this. I trust it makes you a touch more hopeful about future events involveing the courts.
In this case, for the first time ever, it posted the full text of every brief filed in a case. Because of the fast schedule, only 14 attorneys managed to get briefs in. Only one of them -- mine -- urged the Court to "strike" the Florida Supreme Court decision and "do nothing else."
As it turned out, the Court neither affirmed nor reversed the Florida SC in round one. It "vacated" (struck) the decision and did nothing else. And the Court did that unanimously.
Anyone who is a glutton for punishment can put up a link and read all these briefs. In that case the ACLU was on the other side, supporting Gore. In this case the ACLU is on our side, opposing Shays-Meehan.
Any way, the point is, this will not go away just because the Court strikes this down again. The Senate doesn't care what the Constitution says and some of them will bring it up again and again.
If Bush were to veto the bill and point to the court decisions that say this is unconstitutional, he also puts the scum on the defensive and lives up to his oath of office. By signing this bill, Bush loses the main reason many people voted for him. They thought he was honorable and could be trusted.
The political strategy the administration is following may be too slick by half. They stand to lose more than they gain.
A month or so ago, Rove was whining about the millions of Christians who stayed home in the 2000 election. If millions of conservatives stay home in 2002 because of this, we lose on two fronts.
Thank you. You'll be happy you got that off your chest! And Lady Liberty will Love You For Being Her Champion!
Some of the knee-jerk hysterics that some are spouting may seem idiotic a few months from now! All I can say is Washington takes more patience than most people can understand or comprehend. The art of politics is sometimes like a game of chess - the early moves may make no sense, but the goal is to win the game.
This has always been my opinion of Bush (after voting for him twice as governor) - he is a master chess player!
Please do me a favor though, Tell me what you alluded to last week, about what Bush might do, that has never been done before, that would not require a veto of this bill.
I have been wondering about it all week. You can link me to the response if it has been made already.
You hit the nail on the head. Buckley is the granddaddy case in campaign finance "reform." It has been reaffirmed in two dozen other cases since 1976. Buckley will not be reversed, or "revisited" as Li'l Tommy Daschle suggested last week.
And under the plain language of Buckley several sections of Shays-Meehan are unconstitutional, and will be struck down.
I agree with you about the President's decision to sign this monstrosity. I would have much preferred that he stand on the Constitution and vetoed the bill and let the chips fall where they may.
However, it now looks like we will get a Supreme Court decision striking Shays-Meehan BEFORE the November elections. If so, Li'l Tommy Daschle & company (including McCain) will be on the defensive for "deliberately passing an unconstitutional bill."
If so, it is the Democrats and squish Republicans who will suffer most in November, 2002. The result will be a better Congress, And the new Congress will not repass the same monstrosity.
That's my read on the situation. And I'm doing my part by attacking CFR in the Supreme Court with all guns blazing.
How true...from Doug Fiedor report on the news Mar 23:
"The bottom line is that if politicians weren't in the business of granting favors and exacting tribute, every single issue surrounding campaign finance reform would be irrelevant. After all, why would anyone spend money for influence, access, favors and tribute if the only thing that politicians do is to live up to their oaths to uphold and defend the Constitution? But, I'm afraid, most Americans want congressmen to do something else -- to violate the Constitution in order to make it possible for them to live at the expense of others." -- Professor Walter E. Williams
Keep up the good work Congressman!
And thanks for the post dittomom.