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.

[VRWC_minion]

Huh? Bush already signed the bill, this morning. It already is law

Yes, I know and this is the best route to protect our freedoms. With Aschroft in charge of defense and the best GOP legal team in charge of offense how can Bush lose ? All done without the politically expensive use of a veto and at the same time maintaining the best parts of the bill for the GOP and at the same time causing the Rats problems with their own base when they wake up and figure out what Daschle did to them.

[Luis Gonzalez]

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

Then the law is constitutional, unless you know of a higher Court to appeal to.

That's the reality of our system, like it or not, the Supreme Court gets to decide.

[RamsNo1]

I just knew that you were mad about this "vile" bill. But, please tell me more about how Bush is protecting and defending the constitution by signing an unconstitutional bill? Maybe this has something to do with "passing the buck"? If I did this in my profession, I wouldn't be sitting in front of a computer writing this right now cause I wouldn't be able to afford one.

[McGavin999]

I made my position perfectly clear before the house and senate voted on this bill. After they passed it, I knew that the only hope for killing it was the USSC. A veto wouldn't kill it, it would only kick it back to the senate who would keep it around and keep passing it until it came to the desk of a democrat who would sign it. It would STILL end up in court. Why not kill the darn thing once and for all? Besides, I'm sick to death of seeing McCain on the Sunday morning shows and I'm sick of the media whining.

The only sure, clear way to kill this thing is to drive a SCOTUS forged stake through it's heart.

I clearly think that Bush did the right thing. I have never advocated him vetoing the bill once it passed the senate because I can see what the results of that veto would be.

[Texasforever]

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?

Nothing except for the fact that the veto is not absolute. The veto may or may not survive his term if another president and another congress decide to pass and sign the same bill. As to your view of the "oath". If Bush or any president is in violation of their oath because they feel a bill is unconstitutional and signs it anyway then you can't stop there. If any president enforces existing laws such as the Brady Bill when they are on record as saying it is an infringement on the 2nd amendment then they are also in violation of their oath.

[RamsNo1]

Listen to yourself, "how could Bush lose?" This is not about Bush winning or losing or even the republicans winning or losing. Bush is one person, one president in time and will not exist, forever. What he does effects future generations in our country. I, for one, would hope that a president, that I voted for, would have some forethought that extended beyond the 2002 and 2004 elections to what was best for protecting our freedoms for coming generations. Those freedoms belong not just to republicans but voters of other persuasions as well. We want our candidate to win, but at what cost?

[hoosiermama]

wI think we're all missing the overall picture. Since W does NOT have the power of a line veto. The only way to get the better part of the law passed is for him to sign it. In a way the SCOTUS will act as a line veto by eliminating the part that is unconstitutional. The remainder will become law. Bush wins in overtime with a free throw!

[McGavin999]

What he does effects future generations in our country. I, for one, would hope that a president, that I voted for, would have some forethought that extended beyond the 2002 and 2004 elections to what was best for protecting our freedoms for coming generations

Which is exactly what he is doing by sending this thing to the Supreme Court. They are the only ones who can put a stop to this. A veto would have bounced it back to the senate and it would have kept surfacing again and again. With Scalia, Rhenquest, and Thomas on the court I have no fear that this "law" will die a quick and painful death, and it will muzzle some very obnoxious senators along the way.

[Texasforever]

Many just want to win the shouting match but not the fist fight. It has been my experience that those that shout the loudest and bluster their way through life are the ones that have no stomach for the actual fight.

[hoosiermama]

I'd bet my eye teeth that W not only consulted with McConnell, but also some fine contitutional lawyer that we'll be hearing from soon, before he made his decision.
I just finished a book on Lincoln and how he surrounded himself with varying views and then made the correct decision.
I can't imagine that W didn't look into all possibilities and then made the best choice. It certainly wasn't what I thought it would be. But I learned along time ago to trust a higher power.

[VRWC_minion]

How could Bush lose = The ad ban is declared UC.

Calm down, read digest. I know it takes some time to get the full picture but it will become clear to you why this is the better route to protect our 1st amendment rights. Just relax and think through both scenarios and you will see the immediate signing and SC attack is the surest path. The veto, although instantly gratifying, is the least surest path. Think long term and think multi-dimensional. Thank God Bush or his advisors do.

[hoosiermama]

. Think long term and think multi-dimensional. Thank God Bush or his advisors do
AMEN!

[RamsNo1]

This "law" is a LAW with no quotation marks and it is a reality. SCOTUS striking down this law is not a reality as yet and playing the game that the other team will bail you out is dangerous. Will you stay up nights like alot of us did during the election controversy wondering what the courts would do next? Tell me, what will you do if the almighty SCOTUS fails to strike any of the law down? Will this be a part of some master Bush strategy to call a special judicial hearing with Scalia? Please don't say that SCOTUS won't fail because I want to hear from you what you're true feelings would be if they do.

[McGavin999]

They won't fail. OK, I've played your game, now you tell me what you think would have happened to this bill if it had been vetoed.

[Texasforever]

but also some fine constitutional lawyer that we'll be hearing from soon, before he made his decision.

He has the finest constitutional scholar on the planet in his Solicitor General Ted Olson. Bush has had the best legal advice any president has ever enjoyed.

[GoreLoser]

" This is not an issue that should not be decided on the basis of some calculated political ploy, but the common sense constitutional issue." Right on, itsahoot. The operative word is "should." Jr. failed miserably, just like that other political hack, his old man.

[madison46]

Sorry, guess McGavin999 got to me.

On the 'seperation of powers' aspect. The sum of the Constitution is not that Madison seperated governing functions. That is ONE aspect of it. The rest is not overly fanciful either. (not meaning to be terse )

[madison46]

Agree

[Renatus]

. Think long term and think multi-dimensional. Thank God Bush or his advisors do AMEN!

Speaking of "long term"--How about judgment day when George W. has to explain how he violated an oath he took with God as his witness.

[RamsNo1]

My points of view are just as valid as anyone's on this thread or website. I am sorry that what I say is such an irritant to your complacency. No bit of elitism on this thread is going to keep me off of it until I am good and ready.