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.

[McGavin999]

Read post #47

[Republican Wildcat]

Look, the President still has my overall backing, but I cannot defend his action of signing this bill into law. It was just not the right thing to do.

Moreover, your defense is rather weak. The President can veto legislation without the Court's authority.

[Republican Wildcat]

www.McConnell02.com

As of now, I think he's a shoo-in for reelection, so your contributions would be better spent on candidates in States like MO, MN, and SD where the races are going to be very close.

[NittanyLion]

No one can possibly be this dense.

[caddie]

Res ipsa loquitur,dude.

Why do you think dudes like the NRA and McConnell are fighting this new law, whereas commies like the ACLU are silent?

That give you a small hint as to what the effect of this bill would be on us conservatives?

[Republican Wildcat]

Then what, pray tell, do you think "judicial power" is, if not to interpret law?

[demlosers]

Question:
Has Bush sign CFR into law yet?
If so, when?
If not, he's sure is taking his time.....hmmmm.

[cmsgop]

After Careful thought on this I am not worried at all..

I will say no issue I have ever seen has divided conservitives like CFR.....

I Trust this administration......

[itsahoot]

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.

Of course the Supreme court never goes back and overturns
a ruling, nor does congress ever rewrite legislation, or disguise
it as something else, or have the law apply to a different group/agency.

And best of all the supreme court justices never die or retire.

Sorry I must have been dreaming like some of the posters.

[demlosers]

Never mind I see it.

[Republican Wildcat]

The articles similar to "CFR signed into law" that have been posted might contain an answer to your question.

[RetiredArmy]

Sure, too bad you don't know what is free speach and what is not.

[RetiredArmy]

There is too much of this giving in to them. They are getting nearly 2/3rds of everything they want as Bush gives in on issue after issue to keep moving along. At some point, average Joe who does not keep up with this stuff as closely as we news junkies do, will say, well heck, things are fine as they are let's just keep it this way and we are stuck with the communist senate. No, do not compromise your principles. You have to stand for something. If you keep giving away, away, away, then you have no sound principles to build anything on.

[malakhi]

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.

A provisional clause telling the Supremes that they can only throw out part of the bill is probably itself unconstitutional due to separation of powers.

[Mr. Thorne]

Who stOLE the STRAWberries?!

= P

[Renatus]

The thing that upsets me the most is that George W. TOOK AN OATH to uphold and protect the Constitution and refused to do so. He broke the oath he made BEFORE GOD. I will never vote for him again. In this he is no better than Clinton.

[itsahoot]

how much you wanna bet Bush is behind this all the
way....behind the scenes of course.

LOLROTF...You can't be serious? How well does this plan
work if a conservative Supreme court judge, dies?

High Stakes wouldn't you say?

[RetiredArmy]

Who cares. Mcpain is a socialist anyway. Had plenty of time and training while he was in the POW camp.

[NittanyLion]

High Stakes wouldn't you say?

What the hell, it's only the 1st Amendment of the US Constitution. < /sarcasm >

[itsahoot]

I think its brilliant.

I think it is dangerous. (and stupid)