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]

fr01oc01P Obligations of Federal Contractors and Subcontractors; Notice of

This is published in the Federal Register and is in effect.

[Hila]

Thank you, Caddie, well said.

[Texasforever]

It does appear that the EO was recently overturned. That begs the question of why it is stll listed as in force by the Federal Register.

[jwalsh07]

I dunno. Gotta go. Hasta luego.

[jackbill]

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

No he didn't. All he did with that EO was to make government contractors post a notice that union workers could get a refund of union dues that were used for political campaigning - if they dared confront the union.

Paycheck protection means that the union can't spend any portion of a workers union dues for political purposes UNLESS THEY GET WRITTEN PERMISSION FROM THE WORKER.

Big difference.

[BARLF]

I think McCain must be on his last leg health wise(cancer).He looks like a person on high dosage of prednisone. JMO,as to his health but his weight gain is very telling,especially his face.

Maybe, CFR was a going away present for John.......:{

[Redleg Duke]

"Too bad weaked spined Bush could not veto it."

In your dreams! This is much more effective. McLaim is neutered, Dashole and Gepfart and the Rats and RINOs who voted for it are on the spot.

You've got to stop underestimating the President. If you think that Mitch wasn't in direct coordination with the President, I have some great beach property in the Yukon you will be interested in!

[hoosiermama]

No! I didn't get in any heated debate! I just quietly went to my union leader requested the form. And held my ground until I got what I was after. I didn't accept their double talk. Nor did I argue. I repeatedly stated what I wanted, was very assertive, and WON! (In a nice quiet soft voice.)

[Rebelbase]

Bush is a horse trader. If he wants to screw the American people he is in the perfect postion for royal action. But from everything I've seen in the man, I don't believe that he is that way. (Slick did it day in day out).

Partisan politics has been the same for decades. Bitch, moan and whine, the same old bullxhit going on. Example..Veto the bill and give a press conference then the Suck Up loving presstitutes focus on Dashole, Ghephardt and the other loser dems for a hatefest against Bush's partisan ways.

Funny how the bill is signed and same day two lawsuits against it are filed. All Bush has to do now is keep his mouth shut. Mcain and the Congressional authors of this bill are the ones who will be blackeyed over its defeat in the Supreme Court. AND that is what will be covered in the news.

So, the next time a major bill rolls around that really needs to be Vetoed, Bush can pull out the old, "well, if they would stop sending me bills that were unconstitional I might sign them"

This is a new era in politics where being a poker player carries weight and relying on the same old same old will end up getting your butt kicked.

[Renatus]

Don't compare President Bush to Clinton

They both took oaths and violated them.

[RamsNo1]

Yeh, too bad we have a supposed "education president" who couldn't educate the american public as to why he was uncomfortable with parts of this CFR bill. Bush is counting on the majority of people who really aren't interested in this bill to save his sorry butt. I have heard this argument too from many on this website and I say that is a sorry way to run a country where you are counting on the american people to be "sheeple" instead of informed citizens.

[RamsNo1]

Seems to me that my friend, "Texasforever" shot me down on that one, also. Maybe, Texasforever can go back and study that issue to keep up with the facts.

[Howlin]

~~~~snip~~~~

However, the bill does have flaws. Certain provisions present serious constitutional concerns. In particular, H.R. 2356 goes farther than I originally proposed by preventing all individuals, not just unions and corporations, from making donations to political parties in connection with Federal elections.

I believe individual freedom to participate in elections should be expanded, not diminished; and when individual freedoms are restricted, questions arise under the First Amendment.

I also have reservations about the constitutionality of the broad ban on issue advertising, which restrains the speech of a wide variety of groups on issues of public import in the months closest to an election.

I expect that the courts will resolve these legitimate legal questions as appropriate under the law.

President George W. Bush, March 27, 2002

[1L]

One thing concerns me: lack of injury in fact. Any constitutional attorneys out there who can make an argument for that? It appears that the case may not be ripe until next election cycle.

I guess a preliminary injunction may be issued if McConnell can show potential irreperable harm. Oh, well, this will make future Constitutional Law casebooks.

[Renatus]

Maybe Bush doesn't believe its unconstitutional...

If he doesn't then he's pretty stupid. I for one don't believe he is.

[RamsNo1]

Wow, the big, bold lettering has really changed my mind about this whole issue. I will now as a proper little Bush-bot go back into my corner and take my marching orders.

[not-an-ostrich]

Smart of Bush to sign this and let it be shot down in the courts. He knows his enemies and what ammunition they will try to use against him.

[Howlin]

I seriously doubt a daisy cutter could change your mind about George W. Bush.

[McGavin999]

No.....he is counting on Nine Supreme Court Justices. You know, those guys in black robes who rule on constitution "stuff"?

[PsyOp]

Tell me about it. These people who want to fall on their swords over every issue and can't tell the smoke from the mirrors of political rhetoric get a bit tiresome. They remind me of the folks who take one sentence from one of Lincoln's political speeches and on that basis claim that the civil war wasn't about slavery. Unfortunately, critical thinking is in short supply on both sides of the fence - their blinders just point in different directions.

Take Renatus for example; saying that signing a bill so that it can be killed in the supreme court constitutes a dereliction of duty and violation of the constitution. In three replies he refused to address the question I posed concerning the real reason the Dems put so much behind the bill. It was a sucker punch meant for Bush and he dodged it.