The Little Brown Reader

Anti-BCRA brief filed before Supreme Court

Don't be thrown off by the Right To Life group cited in the court case tile below -- this is a broad coalition case against the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act. The national political party mentioned in this poorly-written "press release" is of course the LP; the member of Congress would be Ron Raul; you've probably heard of some of the "nonprofit ideological corporations" (?), but there are a couple different cases like this, and I dont want to mis-guess what groups are in this particular case. I'm pretty sure I'm a member of at least one or two of them.

As far as I can tell, the only good thing to come from the "Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act" is that it gave me the idea of using "Bipartisan" as a term to mock and insult the compromising core of the two corrupt parties. I am grateful for that, but it's served its purpose, and it can go away now.

Press Releases at Liberty For All - Madison Center Files BCRA Opening Brief in Supreme Court

On Tuesday, July 8, 2003, Madison Center attorneys filed their opening brief in the United States Supreme Court in National Right to Life Committee v. FEC (No. 02-1733), one of the consolidated appeals challenging the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 (BCRA). The Madison Center represents a national political party, a member of Congress, a state attorney general, nonprofit ideological corporations, a political action committee, and a minor, who are challenging various provisions of BCRA that limit their freedom of speech and association in the name of "reform."

One key argument in the brief was that "reform" groups advocating enactment of BCRA engaged in the same sort of issue advocacy activity to pass BCRA that they condemned as corrupting when done by other ideological corporations because such activity might influence elections and politicians might feel grateful for their efforts. Common Cause and Campaign for America held town hall meetings for favored candidates, issued communications lionizing candidates promoting their brand of "reform" and sharply attacking those who didn't, issued scorecards, operated phone banks all during peak election seasons. But when examined under oath in this case, leaders of these organizations admitted that their activity might influence elections but that it would never be corrupting.

Full release

Read It Rating: 5.5
Left/Right Rating: 0
Freedom Rating: 2
Learning Percentage: 65%