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.
Actually, if BCRA is overturned except for the increased hard money limit, hehehehehehehehe, the Dems will have a lot of soul searching to do. hehehehehehehehehe
McCain is about to go down in flames, and will not be a factor in the 2004 Presidential election.
I like to win, and I for one do not expect President Bush to follow Marquis de Queensbury rules in a street fight.
Beat the Liberals by whatever means necessary.
Just who are you replying to? That is not from my post.
Is there any way this bill, edited heavily by the Supremes, would work to the advantage of thinking, conservative citizens, who actually care about freedoms versus just handouts?
Then it goes directly to the Supreme Court. It will be accelerated. 4 months, tops, to the decision.
This will not end with the lower court's decision, whatever that is. It WILL go to the Supreme Court. And, when it gets there, I will file one of the briefs against this law.
Both links below deal with this subject.
Congressman Billybob
I notice you don't try to gurantee NO chance.
There is a great chance however that W will lose credibility
with his base, without which he will not be relected, unless
of course he continues to run on the democrat platform.
I expect him to keep his campaign promises and to uphold and protect the constitution. I at one time actually thought he was a man of principle. This hurts real bad.
They better die quick...
"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."
As for conservative vs. liberal judges, see the article linked above which states that argument is irrelevant.
However, there are two routes to get the Court to throw out the whole law, not just part of it, despite that clause. I will pursue both routes in my brief to the Supreme Court.
Congressman Billybob
I meant, here's what ONE should say if he were W:
[I'm scriptwriting for one of Bush's Saturday fireside chats (in my dreams, sad to say, W will never be this bold.)]
I'm saying Bush should act in good faith, and publicly condemn this legislation, and, at the same time, attack a renegade Republican who puts his own personal desires ahead of party loyalty, his oath of office, and the Constitution.
Bush needs to KNOCK McCain down, not WAIT for him to fall down.
That would rally the faithful AND put the RINOS on notice.
I still don't understand this thinking. I have been under the impression that Americans just don't care about CFR, despite the media playing it up all the time. Will you explain what you mean?
And how is it better for us to have this creep, who is a
democrat already, stay in the GOP? Spy maybe for his
new pals?
I would rather my enemies wear clearly marked uniforms.
The first part is ridiculous, the second part is not true!
If that's the way you really feel about Bush, after a mere 14 months in office, I doubt you actually supported his candidacy. So tell us all, who will you vote for in 2004? The Libertarian candidate? The Constitution Party candidate? May be the Reform Party candidate? Perhaps you'll vote for the Democratic Party candidate. LOL.
Look, the Republican Party is home for conservatives and the modern conservative movement is at home in the Republican Party.
Fair and reasonable minded conservatives, like myself, are asking for a united front in support of President Bush and his agenda, we do not ask for unanimity on every issue. It serves no good purpose to draw a line in the sand on every issue. Such rigid thinking is counter productive and is nothing more then reactionary absolutism.
See the article from NewsMax (which I have referenced several times on this thread)...there is a precedent. Geez, dude, do your homework before going off in a tizzy.
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.