BCRA SUPPORTERS REQUEST STAY OF CAMPAIGN FINANCE RULING
Authors of last year’s campaign finance law have asked a three-judge panel to stay its decision regarding
the landmark Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act until the Supreme Court can rule.http://www.rollcall.com/issues/1_1/breakingnews/1509-1.html
VACANCY COULD DOOM BCRA
The possibility that one or more Supreme Court justices could retire prior to the high court’s
consideration of the new campaign finance law is sparking concern among legal experts that such a
development could leave the high-profile case one judge short.
http://www.rollcall.com/issues/48_89/news/1507-1.html
HOUSE ADMINISTRATION ACCEDES TO THOMAS’ COMMITTEE FUNDING REQUEST
Giving Ways and Means Chairman Bill Thomas (R-Calif.) the additional money he wanted, the House
Administration Committee again brought up the biennial committee funding resolution Thursday afternoon 227
a day after Republican leadership pulled the bill because Thomas objected to his panel’s allotment.
http://www.rollcall.com/issues/1_1/breakingnews/1513-1.html
BCRA OPPONENTS URGE CAUTIOUS APPROACH BY SUPREME COURT
Speaking at a CATO forum today, supporters and opponents of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act found few
areas of agreement other than their hope that the Supreme Court will reach a more concise decision than the
mammoth opinion recently released by a U.S. District Court panel.
http://www.rollcall.com/issues/1_1/breakingnews/1544-1.html
PELOSI SAYS NO TO SOFT MONEY
While other party committees have remained mum about their plans, Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.)
declared that House Democrats will not solicit soft money in the wake of a court ruling that may have left
open that opportunity.
http://www.rollcall.com/issues/48_90/news/1541-1.html
HILL IRATE OVER IRAQ BAN
Top House Members from both sides of the aisle are furious at Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld for
essentially banning lawmakers from taking fact-finding trips to Iraq, and many believe the Pentagon chief
is using the cloak of “security concerns” as an excuse to block Congressional oversight.
http://www.rollcall.com/issues/48_90/news/1540-1.html
The U.S. Justice Department and Federal Election Commission have moved today to ask for a stay of the
entire decision issued last week by a three-judge District Court panel in McConnell v. FEC, the case
dealing with the constitutionality of the new campaign finance law.
In requesting the three-judge panel to stay its decision pending final disposition of the case by the
Supreme Court, the Justice Department and FEC stated that “allowing the decision in this case to go into
effect during an appeal would have tumultuous consequences for the Nation`s federal electoral system.“
The stay request of the Justice Department and FEC also stated, “The public has a vital interest in
ensuring that Congress`s presumptively valid judgment about how to address the undeniable and, as this
Court found, “burgeoning“ (Per Curiam Op. at 42) problems that face our federal electoral system is given
effect.“
Yesterday, the congressional sponsors of the new campaign finance law filed a similar request with the
three-judge District Court panel asking for a stay of the entire decision in the case.
The request for a stay submitted by the Justice Department and FEC and the stay request submitted by the
congressional sponsors can both be found on the home page of Democracy 21`s website at http://www.democracy21.org.
The Washington Post
Once More Into the Swamp
Editorial from democracy21.org
May 10, 2003
In matters of campaign finance reform, there is a clear difference between the two political parties:
Republicans are wrong; Democrats are hypocritical. The Democratic strategy was grating enough before
passage of campaign finance reform, when party leaders decried the corrupting influence of big “soft
money“ checks by day and scooped up as many as they could by night. Democrats could make the argument that
as long as soft money remained legal, they weren`t, as President Clinton liked to say, about to
unilaterally disarm. But now Democratic efforts to do an end run around the ban on soft money, a ban that
became law with their overwhelming support, is worse than inconsistent.
COURT DECISION MAKES INFORMATION PUBLIC
THAT WAS PREVIOUSLY UNDER COURT SEAL
During the course of the lawsuit challenging the new campaign finance law, a number of documents were
submitted in the case to the court under seal and not made available to the public.
In an opinion issued on May, 2, 2003 by Judge Kollar-Kotelly, a member of the three-judge District
Court panel that heard the case, the court took the position that the only information that would be made
public from the documents under seal is information used in the opinions issued in the case.
_________________________________________________________________
Democracy 21 E-News Update | May 19, 2003 | http://www.democracy21.org
_________________________________________________________________
DISTRICT COURT PANEL ISSUES STAY OF RECENT RULING
Today a three-judge District Court panel issued a stay of its entire May 2, 2003 ruling in the case
challenging the constitutionality of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (BCRA).
The stay had been requested by the Justice Department and by the congressional sponsors of the BCRA, who
have intervened in the case to help defend the new law.
“We are very pleased that the District Court panel granted the stay we requested and that the panel
recognized the confusion and uncertainty that would have resulted if participants in the 2004 elections
potentially had to face three different sets of campaign finance rules for the elections,“ said Fred
Wertheimer a member of the legal team representing the congressional sponsors in the case.
The full text of the District Court panel`s ruling on the stay is available at http://www.democracy21.org.
ON THE DOCKET, Vol. II, No. 11 | Released: Monday, May 19, 2003
JUDICIAL PANEL STAYS BCRA RULING PENDING SUPREME COURT ACTION
In a 2-1 decision, a U.S. District Court panel chose to “stay” its entire decision on the Bipartisan
Campaign Reform Act, in effect restoring BCRA to its entirety until the Supreme Court has a chance to hear
the case.
http://www.rollcall.com/issues/1_1/breakingnews/1638-1.html
JUDICIAL PANEL STAYS BCRA RULING PENDING SUPREME COURT ACTION
In a 2-1 decision, a U.S. District Court panel chose to “stay” its entire decision on the Bipartisan
Campaign Reform Act, in effect restoring BCRA to its entirety until the Supreme Court has a chance to hear
the case.
http://www.rollcall.com/issues/1_1/breakingnews/1638-1.html
_________________________________________________________________
Democracy 21 E-News Update | May 27, 2003 | http://www.democracy21.org
_________________________________________________________________
U.S. SOLICITOR GENERAL JOINED BY CONGRESSIONAL SPONSORS SUBMITS PROPOSED SCHEDULE FOR SUPREME COURT
CONSIDERATION OF CAMPAIGN FINANCE CASE
On Friday, May 23, 2003, the U.S. Solicitor General, on behalf of the Federal Election Commission
and joined by the congressional sponsors of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (BCRA), submitted a proposed
schedule to the Supreme Court for consideration of the case challenging the constitutionality of the BCRA.
The Solicitor General requested that the Supreme Court establish an expedited schedule for
consideration of the case by noting jurisdiction of the case on June 5, 2003 and by holding oral argument
in the case on either September 5 or 8, 2003, or alternatively during the week of September 29.
The request for expedited consideration of the case by the Supreme Court follows a provision in the
BCRA that it shall be the duty of the “Supreme Court of the United States to advance on the docket and to
expedite to the greatest possible extent the disposition of the action and appeal.“
If the Supreme Court adopts the first alternative proposed by the U.S. Solicitor General it would
mean that the Court would hear oral argument in the case a month earlier than it usually begins its fall
term in early October. And it would set the stage for a decision in this case during 2003.
According to the first alternative schedule proposed by the U.S. Solicitor General the plaintiffs
who brought the challenge to the constitutionality of the BCRA would file their opening briefs on June 27,
2003; the parties defending the new law would file their opening briefs on July 18, 2003; the plaintiffs
would file reply briefs on August 5, 2003; the defendants would file reply briefs on August 22, 2003; and
oral argument would be heard by the Supreme Court on September 5 or 8, 2003.
The motion filed by the U. S. Solicitor General, including the proposed alternative schedules, can
be found on Democracy 21`s website at http://www.democracy21.org.
The U.S. Solicitor General`s motion to the Supreme Court noted about its proposed scheduling
approach, “The schedule we propose would enable the parties to brief the questions presented in the most
coherent manner possible and would thereby assist the Court in its consideration of the case.“ The motion
also noted that, “The Executive Branch parties anticipate that this case will likewise require more than
the standard allotment of argument time,“ referring to the four hours of oral argument provided in Buckley
v. Valeo, the landmark campaign finance case argued in 1975.
Also on Friday, May 23, 2003, Supreme Court Chief Justice William Rehnquist denied a request by
some of the plaintiffs in the campaign finance case to overturn a portion of the three-judge district
court`s ruling that stayed its decision in the case and thereby left the entire BCRA in place until the
Supreme Court decides the case.
In denying the request, in what the Associated Press described as “unusually blunt language,“
Rehnquist wrote that:
“Applicants have filed an application to vacate the stay entered by the District Court. After
consulting with other members of the Court, I shall deny the application to vacate the stay entered by the
District Court. An act of Congress is presumed to be constitutional, see Bowen v. Kenrick, 483 U.S. 1304
(1987), and the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act should remain in effect until the disposition of this case
by the Supreme Court. The application to vacate the stay is denied, and the application for an injunction
pending appeal, which was contingent on my vacating the District Court`s stay, is thereby rendered moot.“
ON THE DOCKET, Vol. II, No. 14 | Released: Tuesday, May 27, 2003
SOLICITOR GENERAL REQUESTS EARLY START ON CFR BY SUPREME COURT
The U.S. solicitor general and Congressional sponsors of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act have asked the
Supreme Court to hear oral arguments in the landmark campaign finance case in September 227 a month
earlier than the high court normally begins its fall term.
http://www.rollcall.com/issues/1_1/breakingnews/1718-1.html
BCRA OPPONENTS AGREE WITH EARLY START, BUT NOT BRIEFING LIMITATIONS
Like the bill’s sponsors, opponents of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act favor early-September oral
arguments in the Supreme Court, but they vigorously oppose the defenders’ proposal that there be only two
rounds of briefing in the landmark case.
http://www.rollcall.com/issues/1_1/breakingnews/1720-1.html
SUPREME COURT SETS CFR ORAL ARGUMENTS FOR SEPT. 8
Responding to requests from Congress and others for an expedited hearing of McConnell v. Federal Election
Commission 227 the most notable campaign finance case since Buckley v. Valeo 227 the Supreme Court on
Thursday announced it will hear four hours of oral arguments Sept. 8.
http://www.rollcall.com/issues/1_1/breakingnews/1826-1.html
a technology job is no excuse 