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.

[1L]

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.

Total wishful thinking. This comment reminds me of one several years ago on Monday Night Football. That idiot Dan Dierdorf (great player, lousy announcer) actually made a relevent comment on a game getting out of control, score wise. He said the (losing team -- I don't remember who) is "obviously letting the (winning team) get so far ahead, they'll quit and the losing team will have them where they want them." (My paraphrase). Gifford responded with the best line in MNF history: "Dan, you played for the Cardinals for too long!"

In 1992, I made the comment that one term of Bill Clinton would make the country realize that it no longer wanted a Democratic President for at least 20 years. I was wrong, as you are here. In politics, you don't win by losing, and I challenge you to give me one example where one side totally caved on an important issue to most of their constiuents and they came out the better for it.

[samtheman]

In another thread no this issue, some are posing the question of whether or not Bush's signature on this bill constitutes an "impeachable offense". I guess they never saw that little cartoon demonstration they used to show in elementary school about "how a bill becomes a law".

[PsyOp]

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.

I posted earlier in this thread that I'd like to play poker with a few of these myopic fools. Since they're dumb enough to fall for a blatant Democrat bluff, we could probably clean up if we suck a few of them into a good game of five card stud. Whadda ya think?

[McGavin999]

In politics, you don't win by losing, and I challenge you to give me one example where one side totally caved on an important issue to most of their constiuents and they came out the better for it.

CFR isn't important to anybody. Anyone in the know is well aware that the courts will shoot down any parts that are unconstitutional. The rest of the country really doesn't care.

[RamsNo1]

What? Doesn't Bush also know about the constitutional stuff, also? He did say that he had constitutional problems with it so he isn't that ignorant of our founding principles. My point is that, no matter what the role and duty of the SCOTUS is, this bill should never have gotten to them if the Chief Executive Officer was properly interpreting the constitution. I really do believe that all of you who are giving Bush a pass on this by saying it should be handled just in the courts are as furious as anyone. Tell me that you're not a little upset that everyday you are being reminded on this website that all Bush had to do is veto this bill. Bush has created all his own problems with this.

I don't believe for a minute that he will care about advancing a conservative agenda if he has a republican senate and house next year. There still won't be enough of a republican senate majority to make much difference with all the RINOs. Why should he care if americans are fat and happy and don't want any dissent? He will just go around the country making speeches in 2003 and 2004 to reaffirm his kingly status and lovely tone leading up to his re-election campaign at the end of 2004.

[PsyOp]

I guess they never saw that little cartoon demonstration they used to show in elementary school about "how a bill becomes a law".

LOL!

[madison46]

Ghee, and your understand doesn't extend futher than first grade 'speration of powers' concepts.

[Renatus]

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.

I don't think I said that signing the bill was in violation of the constitution. However, I did say that signing it was a violation of the oath he made WITH GOD AS HIS WITNESS to defend and protect the Constitution.

[McGavin999]

Tell me that you're not a little upset that everyday you are being reminded on this website that all Bush had to do is veto this bill. Bush has created all his own problems with this

No, actually I'm not upset about it at all. I've been on this board for over 4 years and I've learned to recognize who is who. Most of those ranting and raving are good people but they never backed Bush in the first place. They're not interested in winning, they like to argue. They keep the place interesting, but I'm not foolish enough to believe that them saying "Bush has lost my vote" means anything because he never had it in the first place and he has lost absolutely nothing. They simply don't understand that the President of the United States is the president of ALL Americans, he is not a term limited dictator.

[FreeReign]

The Constitution allows the president to veto a law for any reason whatsoever.

The Constitution allows the president to veto a law or sign a law for any reason.

[VRWC_minion]

Tell me that you're not a little upset that everyday you are being reminded on this website that all Bush had to do is veto this bill.

I was angry until I realized that Bush has many options available to him besides a veto to see to it that the bill doesn't become law. The best alternative option is it is his guy who will be playing defense against his guys who will be heading up the attack.

As president he owns the defensive team called Ashcroft.

[McGavin999]

However, I did say that signing it was a violation of the oath he made WITH GOD AS HIS WITNESS to defend and protect the Constitution.

He is defending and protecting it. He's sending the bill to the Supreme Court where constitutional experts will kill this vile bill once and for all.

[RamsNo1]

So tell me, do YOU care or not? Are you like the rest of the sheeple who don't care? What a lame and lazy excuse for violating a presidential oath and the constitution. I think you do care or you wouldn't be on this website. You are so clouded by the same thing that I was until last week. Last week, I finally learned how to think for myself and for my country not my party. I know which one is more important.

[madison46]

And the 'seperation of powers' ONLY concept is too simplistic to cover it all. There are some laws that could be vague and fall under the 'general welfare'/necessary and proper umbrella. In that instance, barring a presidents out right opposition to a bill, he should sign it. But something that a president clearly considers unconstitutional he should veto it IMHO. I'm not blaming Bush anymore than the other GOP'ers. Infact, once found unconstitutional, the left-over parts will benefit the GOP more than the Dems.

[VRWC_minion]

However, I did say that signing it was a violation of the oath he made WITH GOD AS HIS WITNESS to defend and protect the Constitution

Total nonsense. There are several ways to defending the constitution in this situation. A veto is only one of them and is quite likely the most dangerous given the problem that Bush cannot appoint justices right now.

[madison46]

Not blaming Bush anymore than the GOP'ers that voted for it. I've posted that given the hand he was dealt by Enron, he actually did some good startegery signing it. No ceremony, takes away Dems issue, once the unconstitutional parts are taken out, the left-overs benefit the GOP more than the Dems.

[RamsNo1]

Huh? Bush already signed the bill, this morning. It already is law. I wish it wasn't true but there you have it. The sad thing is that he has made Ashcroft and Olsen accomplices in his action. I feel sorry for Olsen especially who has had a horrendous 6 months since 9/11.

[hoosiermama]

ME TOO!I guess they never saw that little cartoon demonstration they used to show in elementary school about "how a bill becomes a law". ROFLOL!

It's elementary government, Not even 101! In their defense we've had so many presidents who have tried to legislate, congressmen who tried to judicate, Jurist who try to rewrite the constitution. It's no wonder the average American no longer understands the check and balance system and how it is suppose to work.
GW has put a lot of faith in the system. Let's hope it works!

[madison46]

...actually, there were some that feared the judiciary as well. Jefferson, though not at the Constitutional Convention was one. The seperation of powers is almost a moot point and a non-starter. IF a president WANTS to veto a bill, he can give no reason, personal reasons, OR constitutional reasons. The 'Oath' argument begs the question 'If a president feels a law is unconstitutional, should he veto it?' What does seperation of powers got to do with his veto power?

[Texasforever]

I don't see how my posting the roles and powers of the 3 branches is a "separation of powers only" argument. I am just advocating the the actual constitutional framework be followed not some fanciful interpretation of it. I am not directing that at you personally BTW.