Media, Democrats beat drum for McC-F law, planning that it would be used unilaterally against the NRA.
Bush, realizing complexity of the issue and media-drummed public support for it, hesitantly favors it, counting on the Supremes to rule it unconstitutional later.
McC-F passes Congress and Bush signs it into law.
Supremes, having ruled on 2A issue only once in the 20th Century, and then in an underhanded manner, are now forced to decide between being pro 1A or anti 2A. They decide to be anti 2A and determine McC-F is constitutional.
Bush waits in the weeds until 2004 presidential election.
The liberal MoveOn 527 builds media muscle and financial backing.
The Swift Vets 527 leverages their message into major upset in 2004 presidential campaign. Media, Democrats upset with campaign finance laws again.
FEC chair makes noises about rejecting Kerry campaign complaint against Swift Vets 527.
Media asks Bush for response.
Bush responds that a lawsuit should be brought against ALL "shadowy" 527 organizations, including MoveOn.
A lawsuit against all "shadowy" 527s including MoveOn would put the ball back into the Supremes' court. However, this time, the Supremes would not have to consider limiting the conservative NRA, but the both the conservative Swift Vets and the liberal (and media favorite) MoveOn. With media spotlight on the Supremes this time in a different context, the Supremes would be forced to overrule themselves and rule McC-F (for all effective purposes) unconstitutional.
In such a scenario, Bush is utilizing the Hegelian dialectic and deliberately swinging the political pendulum in the opposite direction from the way it should go, in another gamble of the type that begat Mc-F and 527s to begin with.
The stakes of preserving the First Amendment are high. The game is bet-the-Republic. It is unfortunate and a sign of the times that such drastic measures may be the only way of resolving the problems collected under the loose heading of campaign finance reform.
[Note: I'm not sure that a lawsuit is the first step. It might actually be a writ of mandate issued to the FEC. In any case, the direction as discussed seems sufficiently vague that the entire action might be a bluff, and/or might lead to a legislative alternative of watering down McC-F to the point that it becomes impractical to enforce in any sense of the word. I think that scenario might be what they are actually driving towards (since it's clear that the current bench of Supremes have proven their unreliability on constitutional issues already). Not a lawyer, so take all with grain of salt.]
The problem is that now that the USSC has ruled, McC-F can always come back with a vengeance any time the political class decides it's had enough of being criticized.
Bush already bet the Republic when he signed it.
And lost.
One can not assume that the Supreme Court will find it unconstitutional.