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.
Yeah, too bad he didn't overturn the Constitution like you're suggesting by determining what is and what is not Constitutional instead of leaving it up to the branch our forefathers determined was empowered to do. Too bad he didn't just usurp powers that didn't belong to him.
But, I guess we'll just have to get used to a president who has actually read and understood the thing.
How long will it take to be heard and dealt with? If a Judge finds it unconstitutional and the President does not protest the Judge's decision, its essentially dead, is'nt it?
The bill has a provisional clause, only the parts that affect the First Amendment will be thrown out. And yes, those parts will be dead.
What will war hero McCain say when the court says his pride and joy is unconstitutional ?
Why would W be upending the Constitution, by having vetoed this law?
I, too, think W was completely spineless in not vetoing this law, if he signed it, thinking the Supremes would "correct" it after-the-fact.
Presidents are supposed to veto crappy bills like this one, not run them through the Supremes first for approval and "correction".
Especially by the numb-nuts who are in the Supreme Court nowadays.
That would be an ass-backwards, unconstitutional way to do it.
"The Constitution and the Supreme Court are clear on this subject. The First Amendment says, "Congress shall make no law ... abridging ... the right of the people peaceably to assemble and to petition ... for a redress of grievances." This applies to organization, speech, and political activity.
The court has called voting "the most basic right," because all other rights depend on it. It has also said "freedom of expression" is essential to elections.
Two cases predict what the Supreme Court would do. In First Nat'l Bank vs. Bellotti, 1978, the court struck down a Massachusetts ad ban against corporations in referendum elections. A bank concerned with a tax referendum won the right to publish its views. In Virginia State Board of Pharmacy, 1976, the court struck a Virginia ban against druggists advertising their prices.
In Bellotti, it was not the speech of citizens, but merely of a corporation. In Virginia Pharmacy, there was no political content. Still, the court called the ban "highly paternalistic," concluding that the First Amendment has "made the choice" between "suppressing information" and the "dangers ... if it is freely available."
In dozens of cases, political speech by citizens is the most protected right in what Thomas Jefferson called "the marketplace of ideas."
This will not be a narrow decision, split between "conservative" and "liberal" justices. Such analysis is irrelevant here.
Concerning abortion, the ad ban equally silences National Organization for Women and Right to Life. It equally tells Hand Gun Control and National Rifle Association to sit down and shut up. Every organization, on all sides of every issue, is equally silenced by this bill.
Attempts to stifle political speech always attract strange bedfellows. This writer was part of the planning of Buckley vs. Valeo, 1976, which successfully challenged the first campaign finance "reform" act. The general counsel of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the legal director of ACLU were together in that group. Today, NRA and ACLU will challenge this act.
Court action will be prompt. Like the 1974 act, the current bill provides that legal challenges go to the three-judge court, then to the Supreme Court, and should be "accelerated on the dockets." Buckley went from trial to final decision in just six months. This case may move even faster.
A slam dunk...how much you wanna bet Bush is behind this all the way....behind the scenes of course.
I think that was the intent all along. But I disagree with it being an "unconstitutional way to do it"
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.