SENATOR MITCH McCONNELL FILES LEGAL CHALLENGE TO CAMPAIGN FINANCE LAW

Sen. Mitch McConnell ^ | March 27, 2002 | McConnell's Press Office

[caddie]

What if McCain DOESN'T go down in flames?

What if the Supremes, who nearly gave us a President Gore, you will recall, decide that the law is just great, Constitutional, yessiree.

Then what?

What if this putative victory energizes McCain?

And the press picks up on it, and, for two solid years, beats the drum that, "McCain saved the nation from corruption...McCain reformed the nation..."?

What makes you think the Supremes are going to crack on this legislation?

I think, based on what crazy stuff the Supreme Court has done before, that they could find that it is just perfect.

[madison46]

It seems McConnel, NRA, ACLU are going to attack, and with a lot of Constitutional weight and prior precedents, the soft money bans and advertising ban and all other limitations. The only one that seems to be safe is the hard money limit which was raised from $1,000 to $2,000. That is where the GOP whips the Dems every year - in hard money. Bush even mentioned that at the signing (snicker, snicker) ceremony (snicker, snicker I loved the slight at McCain hehehe).

In Buckley (1976) Wasn't that a 9-0 decision? Wasn't Rehquist AND Stevens on that court? If so, seems there is two votes there...if it even gets that far. Bush may decide after lower court rulings not to appeal.

[Lopeover]

yeah, Teddy and Ronnie wouldn't do it. This isn't their time! The left and it's vast leftwing media groups would fry 'em! But it is about time we won! The "left" uses our virtue against us ALL THE TIME! They do it and the "leftwing media" conspiracy poops all over the "right" for taking the high road! Well, not today laddie, today our president played the politic game. They expected the right to block this! They wanted the "right" to block this. When the Congressional Republicans didn't they wanted the President to spend his political capital to do it. He told them he would sign it. Pres. Bush signed a bill that the court is going to have to resolve the constitutionality on parts of that law! The Congress is responsible as there hasn't been true statesmen/women in Congress for a long, long, long time!

[ravingnutter]

Thank you for your input...they seem to be ignoring me, hopefully they will listen to you as an "insider". I never understood people who form their opinions without doing their homework and knowing all the facts...and it really irritates me when they just plain ignore the facts when they are put right in front of them.

[Renatus]

Such rigid thinking is counter productive and is nothing more then reactionary absolutism.

George W. is just like the rest of them. Had such hopes for him and our nation. Puff! Up in smoke. Twas but a dream.

[caddie]

Has ACLU made any stand on this law?

[Congressman Billybob]

I'm here. What's on your mind?

Billyb9ob

[ravingnutter]

Congressman BillyBob responded on #87 and #91.

[PsyOp]

There is too much of this giving in to them. They are getting nearly 2/3rds of everything they want as Bush gives in on issue after issue to keep moving along.

I don't really see it that way, especially on this issue. As was pointed out in an earlier post, and which I should have mentioned, by signing the bill he gave McConnell and open door to kill this in the Supreme Court once and for all. Once they rule, and the Constitution is clear, it goes away. If he had vetoed it, it would come back from the dead year after year.

Didn't your parents ever let you do something they knew was wrong because in order for you to learn your lesson you needed to stub your toe on the facts of life? That is what is going on here and I am quite sure that Bush is working hand in hand with McConnel behind the scenes.

You also speak of the publics short memory. Have you forgotten the position that Jeffords put bush in? If you go back and look at Reagan's presidency, you will find that he had to cut lots of deals with Democrats (who were a lot easier to work with then than Daschel and company are now), in oder to get his tax cuts and military expenditures. The only difference is that Bush lacks the speaking eloquence to sell these deals to fellow Republicans that the Gipper possesed.

And last, while I have heard lots of carping about how wrong he was to sign it, those doing the complaining have conveniently glossed over the realities of the political situation and the consequences spinning his wheels on a non-issue that was destined to die in the Supreme Court anyway.

There are plenty of things I wish he were doing different, or, rather could do different. Most of these things, though, sort themselves out upon sober reflection. Like you, I wish he'd balled the bill up and thrown it in the trash. But I understand and agree with the decision not to. He did the smart thing under the circumstance, not the most gratifying thing. There is a difference.

[madison46]

I think it was posted in this thread somewhere that the ACLU has finally filed. Funny, the First Amendment protectors were behind the Second Amendment protectors.

[PsyOp]

I notice you don't try to gurantee NO chance.

Nothing in life is certain, but death, taxes and a freeper with a bug up his arse.... ;)

[snopercod]

I think its brilliant.

Let's assume that your theory is correct and Bush actually knows (or cares) that what he just signed was unconstitutional. What do you think the future holds for America when the chief executive has fool the people into doing the right thing? He could have vetoed the bill and requested congress to resubmit it with the offensive section removed. It would have been a wonderful opportunity for the president to reinforce some fundamental ideas regarding the differences between America and a third-world dictatorship.

But he didn't. Bush doesn't seem to understand the power of ideas like Reagan did...or Ayn Rand did. She wrote:

"What is the moral stature of those who are afraid to proclaim that they are the champions of freedom? ...What is the rationality of those who expect to trick people into freedom , cheat them into justice, fool them into progress, con them into preserving their rights, and while indoctrinating them with statism, put one over on them and let them wake up in a perfect capitalist society some morning?"

--Ayn Rand

[caddie]

But are not things better in the media now, with O'Reilly, Fox, H&C, Keyes, etc., than they were in the time of Reagan?

In Reagan's time, I recall the Big Three networks, and, man, that was it, electronic-wise.

As far as papers went, it was and is just as bad.

I don't think we are in as bad a shape as we were back then with the liberal media.

It's still bad, now, but nothing like back then. Then there was virtually unopposed liberal hogwash. Now there is a little counterpoint.

Plus, FWIW, I refuse to believe that this is some strategic ploy by W.

I think he more or less just caved and figured it (BCRA) wouldn't personally affect him in 2004, his last election, so why bother?

I mean, it's all about HIM getting his SECOND TERM, right?

I mean, the Constitution, the erosion of our personal rights and freedoms, the further decline of our civilization toward the Rat Utopia, I mean, that's not important, is it?

He needs to be a Bipartisan Good Guy, so he gets reelected in 2004. That's what matters, right?!??

That's apparently all that motivates him.

And that is all that motivates RINOs.

And, contrary to my hopes and wishes, W and the RINOs are becoming indistiguishable as we get farther into his administration.

[caddie]

I would like to see what the ACLU has to say about this.

Do you know where I could look for their brief on line, if they have filed it?

Thanks, BTW

[madison46]

Not so sure it's hanging by O'Connors apron strings. Wasn't Stevens AND Rehnquist on the SC in 1976? If so, I expect a 9-0 or 7-2 decision...(Ginsburg and Souter know nothing about the Constitution)

[madison46]

I just checked their web site when you asked above. Nothing there except a March 21 post about weighing what they will do. Guess I read wrong. I'm trying to find the Buckley decsion margin and if Stevens and Rhequinst were on the court

[PsyOp]

I completely understand the concern, but this entire bill was a set up by the Democrats who counted on Republicans going nuts and opposing the bill so they beat us over the head with it for the next twenty years. Though, not widely reported, many democrats did not wnat this bill either, but figured Bush would veto and hand them a golden campaign issue. The poison pill caveats were put into the bill for the sole purpose of killing it if things did not go as planned, and Bush called their bluff.

I'd love to play poker with you guys sometime - I have some kids I need to put through college. Wise up guys!

[caddie]

Exactly. Great quote.

Are the ideas of freedom and human rights so weak and worthless that we have to sneak around to get them implemented?

My paraphrase is weak by comparison.

I can't hold a candle to Ayn-baby.

[Renatus]

Bush called their bluff

And in the process sold his soul to the devil.