The Decision: McConnell v. FEC (A Great Day For The Constitution: Read it for yourself!)

U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia ^ | May 2 2003 | 3 Judge Panel

[Recovering_Democrat]

McConnell v. FEC, et al
Civil Action No. 02-582

Circuit Judge Karen LeCraft Henderson,

District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly,

District Judge Richard J. Leon

Please note: pages 5 - 15 of the Per Curiam Opinion contain a brief description and chart of the Court's rulings.

Per Curiam Opinion of Judge Kollar-Kotelly and Judge Leon

Memorandum Opinion of Judge Henderson

Memorandum Opinion of Judge Kollar-Kotelly

Memorandum Opinion of Judge Leon

Order -- Final Judgment

Memorandum Opinion Regarding Sealed Matters

Order Regarding Sealed Matters

[Recovering_Democrat]

Please just hit the link above and go to the court's decision page. I am so glad the court reversed the free speech limits in this law...and I'm glad, too, the HARD MONEY limits were not struck down!

[Theodore R.]

What will John McCain do now? Might he use this decision as an excuse to switch parties and join with his liberal friend John Kerry as a potential V.P. possibility?

[jwalsh07]

5 KAREN LECRAFT HENDERSON, Circuit Judge, concurring in the judgment in part and dissenting in part: I believe the statute before us is unconstitutional in virtually all of its particulars; it breaks faith with the fundamental principle—understood by our nation’s Founding Generation, inscribed in the First Amendment and repeatedly reaffirmed by the United States Supreme Court—that “debate on public issues should be uninhibited, robust, and wide-open.” New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254, 270 (1964).

My colleagues’ per curiam opinion and their other opinions ignore the statute’s transparent infirmity and leave standing its most pernicious provisions, apparently on the ground that candidatefocused political speech inevitably “corrupts” the individuals to whom it refers. Their reasoning and conclusions treat a First Amendment with which I am not familiar.

See Renne v. Geary, 501 U.S. 312, 349 (1991) (Marshall, J., dissenting) (“[T]he prospect that voters might be persuaded by . . . endorsements is not a corruption of the democratic political process; it is the democratic political process.” (emphasis in original)).

Further, the opinions are similarly flawed in their dissection of the statute’s dense and interlocking provisions, upholding a portion here and striking down a fragment there until they have drafted legislation the Congress would never have enacted — all in the name of deference to that 1

[Jim Robinson]

I believe the statute before us is unconstitutional in virtually all of its particulars; it breaks faith with the fundamental principle—understood by our nation’s Founding Generation, inscribed in the First Amendment and repeatedly reaffirmed by the United States Supreme Court—that “debate on public issues should be uninhibited, robust, and wide-open.”

Hurrah for the first amendment!!!

[Jim Robinson]

A huge loss for McCaine and his lefty mutineers and a huge win for Liberty!!

[jwalsh07]

Aye, aye mate.

[Torie]

Thanks. Alas a district court dissenting opinion is far down the food chain. I thought Congress arranged for this law to go straight to SCOTUS. I guess I thought wrong.

[Recovering_Democrat]

The appeal on this decision does go straight to SCOTUS.

[Congressman Billybob]

This is not a "district court opinion." As CFR itself provides, this is a special three-judge court to consider its constitutionality, and as the next poster correctly says, the appeal of this decision goes directly to the US SC.

In my judgment, and I will participate in that case, the US SC will agree with the panel decision that McCain-Feingold is in large part unconstitutional. And that decision will be 6-3 or better.

Congressman Billybob

Latest column, now up on UPI and FR, "All-American Arrogance"

Latest article, now up on UPI and FR, "The Iraqi Constitution"