Losing Crusade May Still Pay Dividends for a Senator

Losing Crusade May Still Pay Dividends for a Senator By CARL HULSE and GLEN JUSTICE

WASHINGTON, Dec. 26 — Senator Mitch McConnell was such a determined opponent of the new campaign finance law that when the fight moved from Congress to the courts, he made certain the decisive case was titled McConnell vs. F.E.C.

Now, with the Supreme Court validating the campaign spending restrictions enforced by the Federal Election Commission in a ruling earlier this month, Mr. McConnell will remain strongly identified with the cause, but on the losing side.

That twist is not lost on advocates of restrictions on fund-raising and spending, who say the word "McConnell" will very likely stand for the case as much as for the lawmaker.

Fred Wertheimer, president of Democracy 21 and a longtime adversary of Mr. McConnell, said: "I am going to talk for years now about how `McConnell' stands for the proposition that campaign finance laws protect against the appearance of corruption and do not restrict protected free speech."

While he may be disappointed by the defeat, Mr. McConnell, the Senate's second-ranking Republican, said he had no regrets about his crusade against proposals he said infringed on the First Amendment.

"This is something I believe deeply in," said Mr. McConnell, a conservative from Kentucky, who has devoted years to derailing efforts to restrict political fund-raising and spending.

As the public face of opposition to legislation that was often portrayed as a way to reduce the influence of moneyed interests, Mr. McConnell took a drubbing. Some proponents of the law, championed by Senators John McCain, Republican of Arizona, and Russell D. Feingold, Democrat of Wisconsin, called him "Darth Vader" and "Public Enemy No. 1."

"He wore it as a badge of honor," said Senator Robert F. Bennett, Republican of Utah, a chief ally.

In his role, Mr. McConnell was not only expressing his own view but also carrying the ball for fellow senators who shared his antipathy for the campaign finance changes but were less willing to get out in front on the politically tricky issue.

That work, as well as other tasks he has undertaken as the majority whip, could pay dividends because Mr. McConnell is viewed as a probable candidate to try to succeed Senator Bill Frist of Tennessee as Republican leader. Dr. Frist has indicated he does not intend to seek re-election in 2006, setting the stage for a contest to succeed him.

"When you look down the road, he seems to be the guy," one senior Republican Senate official said, though he said others were certain to seek the post. "He is very good at working behind the scenes to help members."

That is an apt way of describing Mr. McConnell, 61, who has long been viewed as a tough inside player in Congress and in his home state, where he has been instrumental in building the Republican Party. First elected in 1984, he is also a force in Washington at large, given that he is half of a power couple by virtue of his marriage to Elaine L. Chao, the labor secretary.

Mr. McConnell, who is smart and not shy about letting it show, is considered by many colleagues to be among the savviest tacticians in the Senate and a relentless opponent, a trait that may have sprung from his battle with polio as a youngster.

Last year, he was elected by his Republican colleagues to be the No. 2 to Trent Lott of Mississippi, the Republican Leader. When Mr. Lott ran into a political buzz saw over comments about Senator Strom Thurmond of South Carolina, it eventually fell to Mr. McConnell to deliver the news to Mr. Lott that it was time to step aside.

Top Senate aides say Mr. McConnell has been a valuable assistant to Dr. Frist, using his own years in the Senate to fill in the gaps for the less experienced majority leader. He has also handled some of the dirty work, defending Dr. Frist against Democrats who accused him of mismanagement and dueling with the Democratic leadership on the floor. He was sidelined for a period earlier this year by heart surgery but seems to have rebounded.

Mr. McConnell has also sought to alter his own image, abandoning his longtime opposition to federal restrictions on tobacco advertising in exchange for a proposal to aid tobacco growers.

Yet campaign finance has been his signature issue, but as far as the McCain-Feingold law is concerned, Mr. McConnell acknowledges that fight is lost.

The outcome for Mr. McConnell drew sympathy from former Senator James L. Buckley of New York, a conservative whose name graced a previous campaign finance ruling, Buckley vs. Valeo. That 1976 decision struck down part of the Watergate-era campaign finance restrictions.

"The Supreme Court treated me much more kindly," Mr. Buckley said. "He tried to do his duty as a senator and a citizen. He failed, but he should take pride in the effort."

Though Mr. McConnell lost at the court, advocates of the law credit him with putting up a battle. They said he was simply overwhelmed by a shift in public, legislative and legal opinion on the issue.

Mr. McConnell disputes the idea that the new law will reduce the flow of money into politics, and he said that one of the chief consequences would be to weaken the national political parties and give more power to independent organizations.

"There won't be any less speech or money spent," Mr. McConnell said. "Dramatically more will be spent, just in a different way."

And while he has no concrete plans concerning campaign finance, he has no doubt the issue will resurface even as some people try to rehabilitate the system for public financing of presidential campaigns.

"The issue is never over," Mr. McConnell said. "You are talking about the ability of people to speak in a free society, and political speech, which is at the core of the First Amendment. People want to have their say."

I imagine a lot of people will say the hell with it and challenge this lousy supreme court decision by speaking out their political views in the two months before the next election.

What kind of effect will it have if people are arrested simply for expressing their political opinions?

Fortunately, each an every provision of the CFR bill can be challenged. The first amendment concerns that Mitch McConnell and GWB had with this bill were legitimate and should have been struck down by the SCOTUS. Unfortunately the SCOTUS abandoned their responsibility to defend the Constitution an upheld this infringement on our 1st amendment rights. Mitch McConnell and George W. Bush gambled on the belief that the SCOTUS would strike down the portions of CFR that violated the 1st Amendment, but they gambled wrong and I believe it was the biggest mistake GWB has made so far.

Hopefully we will see some legislation introduced in Congress that will contain the language necessary to convince the SCOTUS to rule in the favor of the first amendment and not in favor of protectionist incumbents who support this unconstitutional decision

They may indeed protect against the "appearance of corruption", but it was a glorious day for liars, criminals, thieves and incumbents -- but I repeat myself -- when this anti-constitutional ruling was handed down from a Supreme Court which has openly identified itself with lawlessness and rule by whim and fiat.

It now falls upon a Congress fattened by its own corrupt excess to do the right thing, which, of course, it will not, having passed this abomination in the first place.

That President Bush signed it into law is a shameful fact that I will never forgive nor forget.

Yah, GWB gambled and lost. I'm not a Lawyer, but I've taken some law classes, I even wrote a term paper CFR. I've read most of the major CF cases, and I would have swore that it would have been overturned. I praised Bush for signing it at first, because I didn't think their was a chance in hell of it being found constitutional, but boy was I wrong, and so was he.

I guess that's what you get for having Sandra Day "what side am I on this morning?" O'Connor on the bench instead of a real justice.

The socialists are speeding up their campaign to trap us in the Marxist web. Each day more and more people become aware of unlawful dictates spewing from Washington. Banning free speech crossed the line. Now the law of unintended consequences will commence.

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.