SENATOR MITCH McCONNELL FILES LEGAL CHALLENGE TO CAMPAIGN FINANCE LAW

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

[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.

[Texasforever]

But it doesn't have "paycheck protection" for workers - a condition that Bush once said had to be in a bill for him to sign it.

He took care of that with his first executive order upon taking office.

[jwalsh07]

He took care of that with his first executive order upon taking office.

Nope, a judicial activist knocked it down, my wife is in a union and adamantly pro life. We have been fighting this battle a long time. She has, to this day, no say in what the union does with her money. In fact the AFL/CIO has just increased the required tribute dramatically to defeat republicans in Novemeber.

[SteamshipTime]

I think it's waffle language. The Executive Branch must "faithfully execute the laws" so I don't know how the DOJ, including the Solicitor-General, could not defend it. I think Bush is just saying that the high-priced lawyers on the WH payroll won't be fighting for it. I could be wrong.

[Wild Irish Rogue]

I liken CFR to McCainenstein's monster- to veto it, will just give the Dems the ability to keep applying the electrodes and allowing it to metasticize. By signing it, Bush has just driven a stake through McCainenstein's monster. Look at the 3 latest Supreme Court decisions-I am even more confident. The time to strike, is now and not wait, until the temperament of the Supremes is akin to that of Pat Leahy. If McCain goes over to the dark side,officially, we may have a tough time regaining the Senate. This issue is too important to postpone.

[hoosiermama]

DOL plans to appeal the court decision. In the meantime, the court's decision in UAW-Labor Employment & Training Corp. means that DOL may not require federalcontractors and subcontractors to provide employees with Beck notices. However, thisis certainly not the last word on the subject. If you are interested in learning more aboutthe Beck notice requirements for federal contractors or the litigation challenging therequirements, please contact any of the Arent Fox attorneys indicated below. Arent Foxhas been closely monitoring DOL's proposals and the recent legal challenge, and isprepared to advise clients and other interested parties regarding this issue.Page 2 of 2WASHINGTON, DC NEW YORK

Could someone be trying to pull the wool over your wife's eyes????

[wingnuts'nbolts]

Nothing like good old team work!!!!!

[Texasforever]

Nope, a judicial activist knocked it down, my wife is in a union and adamantly pro life. We have been fighting this battle a long time. She has, to this day, no say in what the union does with her money. In fact the AFL/CIO has just increased the required tribute dramatically to defeat republicans in Novemeber.

No the court knocked down another "anti-labor" EO but not the Beck decision. No lower court can overrule the Supreme court.

[jwalsh07]

Mama, you better check with President Bush. His biggest disappointment with the bill, aside from all the minor unconstitutional stuff, was not passing paycheck protection.

Now don't you feel just a little bit foolish?

[jwalsh07]

"He said he was concerned mostly about corporate shareholders and labor union members not having the ability to object to how their money was being spent. However, although no one is required to buy stock in any company, many workers must pay union dues to have a job."

A quote from President Bush today.

[hoosiermama]

Maybe it's just where you live. I no longer must contribute to the union PAC. Just have to REQUEST A FORM and sign in blood that I do NOT want any money taken out of my payroll check. Have done so the last couple of years.

[jwalsh07]

Another quote from President Bush this evening.

"Individuals have a right not to have their money spent in support of candidates or causes with which they disagree ... I hope that in the future Congress and I can work together to remedy this defect of the current financing structure," he said.

[Texasforever]

"He said he was concerned mostly about corporate shareholders and labor union members not having the ability to object to how their money was being spent. However, although no one is required to buy stock in any company, many workers must pay union dues to have a job."

Yes he wanted that in CFR however, the Beck decision is back in force and it allows union members to withhold their dues as a percentage of the amount unions spend on political activities they object to. That is not speculation that is fact and that EO has not been overturned by a lower court because it cannot be overturned by a lower court. Is the Beck decision going to stop the unions, NO, and the fact is that union members are going to not make waves when their livelihood is on the line. Having it as a part of CFR would not change that fact.

[hoosiermama]

I'm just saying. Have your wife ask for a form. It ceratinly wasn't offered to me. I had to request it several times. And then was put under a great deal of pressure not to sign it. What really made them angry was I told others & they requested to do like- wise. Check it out. Don't be a sheepal! There obviouly are some States where it is already law or I would be paying too!

[hoosiermama]

Thanks for the facts. You're right on target! It takes a strong stomach and some real nerve to stand up. What irks me is the people who complain, but just go along following the bell on the goat.

[jwalsh07]

Having it as a part of CFR would not change that fact.

I think that you are unfamiliar with unions at the grunt level. A law preventing unions from using your dues for partisan political purposes would indeed change that. They should be required to get voluntary contributions for partisan political purposes just like everybody elese.

Beck is a joke and like I said the judicial activist struck down President Bush's EO, not Beck. The unions ignore Beck, period. Beck has been the law for many years and for many years my wife has been asking that they not use her money to promote crap we are diametrically opposed to. Neddless to say, her pleas continue to fall on deaf ears.

[jwalsh07]

If you are referring to this old goat, I don't follow anybody, anywhere. I am, as they say, my own goat.

[41Thunder]

"What will war hero McCain say when the court says his pride and joy is unconstitutional?"

He already knows it's unconstitutional but he doesn't care. He sold his load of crap and we're all going to pay for it in the end.

[Texasforever]

Beck is a joke and like I said the judicial activist struck down President Bush's EO, not Bec

Jwalsh07 I would assume you can point to the decision?

[jwalsh07]

Don't be a sheepal

There are pictures on FR of my wife and I in , shall we say, heated debate with a couple of hundred union guys including 30 or so imported thugs. We don't remember seeing you in the picture.

[jwalsh07]

Letter to President Bush with Links to relevant material