Posted on 03/27/2002 11:57:51 AM PST by ravingnutter
For Immediate Release
March 27, 2002
SENATOR MITCH McCONNELL FILES LEGAL CHALLENGE TO CAMPAIGN FINANCE LAW
WASHINGTON, D.C. - Following through on his promise to challenge the constitutionality of the campaign finance bill recently passed by Congress, Senator Mitch McConnell (R-KY) today filed a legal challenge with the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia moments after the bill was signed into law.
"Today, I filed suit to defend the First Amendment right of all Americans to be able to fully participate in the political process, said McConnell. "I look forward to being joined by a strong group of co-plaintiffs in the very near future.
Last Thursday, Senator McConnell introduced the legal team that will represent him in this challenge. It consists of well-known First Amendment lawyer Floyd Abrams; former Solicitor General and former judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, Ken Starr; First Amendment Scholar and Dean of the Stanford University Law School, Kathleen Sullivan; general counsel for the Madison Center for Free Speech, James Bopp; and prominent Washington election lawyer Jan Baran.
As for the content of his legal challenge, McConnell simply said: "The complaint speaks for itself." A summary of the legal challenge is attached. For a complete text of the suit filed today, go to the following website - campaignfinance.stanford.edu.
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.
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.
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.
Billyb9ob
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.
Nothing in life is certain, but death, taxes and a freeper with a bug up his arse.... ;)
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
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.
Do you know where I could look for their brief on line, if they have filed it?
Thanks, BTW
I'd love to play poker with you guys sometime - I have some kids I need to put through college. Wise up guys!
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.
And in the process sold his soul to the devil.
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.