...McCain-Feingold,
in virtually all of its particulars, violates "bedrock constitutional
principles" such as free speech, free association, and limited
federal power.
|
McCain-Feingold
Challengers File Opening Briefs in Supreme Court
The
first shots in the High Court battle over the constitutionality
of the Bipartisan Campaign Finance Reform Act of 2002 were fired
Tuesday when attorneys for Senator Mitch McConnell (R-KY), the Center
for Individual Freedom and the other plaintiffs challenging the
law filed their opening briefs with the U.S. Supreme Court.
Emphasizing
the blatant unconstitutionality of McCain-Feingolds campaign
finance restrictions, the opening brief of the lead plaintiffs,
including the Center for Individual Freedom, explains that, "[f]ar
from merely closing loopholes, the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act
of 2002 (BCRA) wholly rewrites our Nations campaign finance
laws and works nothing less than a fundamental reordering of our
political process."
"With
its encroachments on the activities of actors at all levels of the
political process, BCRA cannot be justified without abandoning th[e]
first principle of uninhibited, robust debate," the brief argues.
"Equally disturbing, BCRA regulates different actors in the
political process, and different types of speech, in disparate fashion,
without advancing any legitimate justification for doing so. It
disadvantages political parties in comparison with interest groups;
television stations in comparison with newspapers; and so-called
attack ads in comparison with other ads.
Ultimately,
the Constitution demands that this Court err on the side of protecting
more speech, not less. As the Court noted almost two decades ago,
[t]he fact that candidates and elected officials may alter
or reaffirm their own positions in response to political messages
can hardly be called corruption, for one of the essential
features of democracy is the presentation to the electorate of varying
points of view."
The
brief goes on to explain why McCain-Feingold, in virtually all of
its particulars, violates "bedrock constitutional principles"
such as free speech, free association, and limited federal power.
The
war of words will continue when the federal government and the other
parties defending the law file their responses on August 5. The
challengers will then have one last chance to reply in writing on
August 21, just two-and-a-half weeks before the Court hears oral
arguments in a special four hour session on September 8.
To
read the opening brief filed by the lead plaintiffs, including the
Center for Individual Freedom, click
here.
[Posted
July 10, 2003]
|