webodec3ARCHIVEPreview
Open in TheBrain

McConnell v FEC

===

took out McCain Feingold w. NRA

see mafia staff koctopus

---

Posted on December 10, 2018

Democracy Amendments

Today is the fifteenth anniversary of the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in McConnell v. Federal Election Commission, a case that points to a future that could have been.

The case

The case was born out of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002, also known as McCain-Feingold after its two Senate sponsors, John McCain (R-Ariz.) and Russ Feingold (D-Wisc.). Working together for a seven-year period against considerable opposition from interest groups, these two senators and their House counterparts, Reps. Chris Shays (R-Conn.) and Marty Meehan (D-Mass.), fought to update the federal campaign finance law, which had barely been updated since 1974, to reflect new realities. The law was far from a perfect solution, as it was hamstrung not only by the politics of the day but also by the Supreme Court’s 1976 precedent Buckley v. Valeo, but still, it was the most meaningful federal reform in a generation.

In the House, a bipartisan majority voted the bill in over the objections of the speaker; in the Senate, it overcame a filibuster with 60 votes. President Bush signed it into law in 2002. Shortly afterwards, a motley crew of special interests and opponents of reform, ranging from the California Democratic Party to Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), challenged it in court as unconstitutional. They claimed that it was unconstitutional.

And then something happened that, by today’s standards, would be remarkable: the U.S. Supreme Court upheld almost all of it. The case did not produce a single majority opinion covering all the issues, so it is complex to read, but overall, a coalition of justices appointed by different presidents from both parties upheld nearly all of the challenged provisions of the law. The Court broke no new ground; for example, it adhered to Buckley‘s insistence that campaign finance laws could only be justified on the basis of “corruption” rather than, for example, the principle of political equality. But the Court found that the particular reforms in the McCain-Feingold law were, in fact, justified as protecting against corruption or the appearance of corruption.

Fifteen years later

McConnell is in many ways a symbol of a lost future. After a change in composition of the Court, in 2010 (just seven years after the decision), the Court’s infamous Citizens United v. FECdecision overruled key parts of McConnell. The 2014 McCutcheon v. FECwas a further retrenchment. Some parts of McConnellsurvive, but its key principles no longer enjoy majority support on the Court.

To be clear, the McCain-Feingold bill was no panacea; it solved some very specific problems of the 1990s, while not even attempting to address broader political inequalities. But a Supreme Court jurisprudence that built precedent from the McConnelldecision would have been better than one that tore it down with Citizens United.

How do we move forward? First, there are many “low-hanging fruit” reforms, such as public financing of elections, that can be pursued without running afoul even of the Supreme Court’s current cramped jurisprudence. Second, we can pursue innovative litigation and legislation designed to cut back on Citizens Unitedand its progeny in specific areas where there is still room for progress at the Supreme Court, such as fighting super PACs and foreign money (whether directly or “laundered” through corporate political spending). And third, we can work to pass a constitutional amendment to go further than even McConnelldid, and overturn not just Citizens Unitedbut Buckleyas well, and work towards the promise of political equality for all.

---

===

CAMP FIN OVERVIEW:

Kochs key among small group quietly funding legal assault on campaign finance regulation – Center for Public Integrity

...

But the funding that is known offers key clues about the players behind the greatest unraveling of campaign finance regulation in U.S. history.

‘Buckley’ and Cato

One must travel back in time more than 40 years to understand how today’s motley collection of campaign money laws came to be — and how limits on political fundraising and spending have unraveled along the way.

It began with the Supreme Court’s *Buckley v. Valeo* decision of 1976, a reaction to Watergate reforms passed by Congress. The court upheld limits on contributions to political campaigns, but in a critical part of the ruling which would play a major role years later, allowed for unlimited spending on campaigns.

IFrame Content

The Buckley v. Valeo fight also helped inspire Ed Crane, former national chairman of the Libertarian Party, which was one of the case’s plaintiffs, to create a libertarian equivalent to the predominant think tanks of the day — the liberal Brookings Institution and the conservative American Enterprise Institute.

With $500,000 from Charles Koch, Crane became the leader in 1977 of the Cato Institute, previously named the Charles Koch Foundation. In 1981, it moved from San Francisco to the heart of American political power — Washington, D.C.

Ever since, the Cato Institute has tirelessly fought against campaign finance laws it considered antithetical to its philosophy of small government and largely unencumbered speech.

“We stand against campaign finance laws in general,” Cato Institute research fellow Trevor Burrus said. “We believe that most campaign finance laws are unconstitutional. They are clear impediments of political speech.”

For the Kochs, was Cato an ideological enterprise or vehicle for self-interest? Both, to some degree. Avowed libertarians, the Kochs control a vast empire of heavily regulated companies that would undoubtedly benefit from less government intrusion. Coloring the political system red instead of blue has practical, financial implications for the Kochs, who overwhelmingly support Republican candidates and causes.

The nation’s campaign money system largely stood unchanged until 2002, when Congress passed the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act — commonly known as the McCain-Feingold Act, named for its two Senate sponsors. The law curtailed a variety of political activities and included a ban on unlimited “soft money” contributions — corporate and union cash — given to political parties.

It also attracted an immediate backlash by foes of campaign finance legislation. Twelve suits brought by more than 80 plaintiffs — were consolidated as McConnell v. Federal Election Commission, named for Mitch McConnell, a U.S. senator from Kentucky and current majority leader, who has long been in favor of liberalizing restrictions on campaign contributions.

‘McConnell’ et. al.

Those joined together under McConnell included the National Rifle Association, the Republican National Committee, the National Right to Life Committee, the American Civil Liberties Union, the AFL-CIO, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and others.

Generally, the backers of these campaign finance case litigants are well-known, but not always.

And some are surprising.

Take the ACLU. Despite its reputation as an unabashedly liberal organization, the ACLU has routinely aligned itself with libertarians and conservatives in recent legal fights against campaign finance regulations. Who are the top donors to the ACLU?

Tops is the left-leaning Sandler Foundation, having given more than $24 million to the ACLU and the ACLU Foundation since 2001, according to the Center for Public Integrity’s review of tax records.

Other known funders of the ACLU’s 501(c)(4) “social welfare” nonprofit arms include the ACLU Foundation; Equal Justice Works; Proteus Action League; GLBTQ Legal Advocates; and the Jewish Community Federation of San Francisco, The Peninsula, Marin and Sonoma Counties. Together, they’ve given more than $856,000 since 2010, tax filings show.

Proteus Action League is an affiliate of Proteus Fund, a left-leaning philanthropic organization. It also creates and oversees grants aimed at limiting money and politics, according to its website. Between 2013 and 2015, the Proteus Fund and the Proteus Action League have together given $306,000 to the ACLU and the ACLU Foundation.

Publishers Clearing House money has infused the LuEsther T. Mertz Charitable Trust, which in turn has contributed more than $6.6 million to the ACLU Foundation for various initiatives, according to the Center for Public Integrity’s review of available tax documents from 2005 to 2015.

The National Rifle Association is prominent for its passionate support of firearms rights, and more recently, the presidential campaign of Donald Trump. But it, too, began supporting campaign finance deregulation in earnest at the time of the McConnell case.

One of the NRA nonprofit’s more notable funders is the Cabela’s Outdoor Fund, a social welfare organization connected to the famous outdoor outfitter Cabela’s, which is also a major firearms retailer.

From 2012 to 2015, the fund gave the NRA $1.3 million. Richard Cabela, the now deceased founder of Cabela’s, was a passionate supporter of the NRA. The company, which Bass Pro Shops acquired earlier this year, had about $4.1 billion in revenue last year, according to its annual report.

Koch-connected organizations have also been quite active.

Cato intervened by filing an “amicus brief” in McConnell, as did the Institute for Justice, a group that got its start thanks to the Kochs.

The Supreme Court, for the most part, upheld the “soft money” and political advertising restrictions of the McCain-Feingold law but struck down the age restrictions on minors’ ability to contribute money to politicians as a violation of free speech rights.

The mixed ruling gave pro-political speech advocates fuel to continue challenging campaign laws, and the chipping away of the reforms began in earnest.

The Supreme Court’s ruling in Wisconsin Right to Life v. FEC in 2007 further eroded the McCain-Feingold law by allowing certain nonprofit groups to air political issue ads within 30 days of a primary election and 60 days of a general election. Wisconsin Right to Life Inc., a nonprofit advocacy group, wanted to run ads that would ask voters to call their senators urging them to oppose filibusters of judicial nominees.

Emerging as a national figure in this case after working for years in lower courts was James Bopp, who was counsel for Wisconsin Right to Life.** A bevy of organizations intervened in the case, many arguing for religious freedom of speech. The American Civil Liberties Union, a regular stalwart opponent of limits on free speech, had its say, as did a number of Koch-connected organizations.

Among them, the Center for Competitive Politics (now the Institute for Free Speech), the Cato Institute, the Goldwater Institute and the Institute for Justice.

The Goldwater Institute is a public interest legal organization based in Phoenix, Arizona, named after former U.S. Sen. Barry Goldwater, R-Ariz. Timothy Sandefur, vice president for litigation for Goldwater, said its primary mission is “to defend constitutional principles, through direct litigation and amicus participation.” Donors Capital Fund, the Mercer Family Foundation and the Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation are among its most generous funders with a combined total of $4.2 million.

‘Citizens United’

In 2010, the Supreme Court ruled in Citizens United v. FEC that corporations, unions and certain nonprofits could raise and spend unlimited amounts of money to advocate for or against politicians. The enormity of the impact of the decision would not be realized for months, even years.

But those who argued the case and participated in it were well aware of its importance. The usual liberal reform groups chimed in, as well as a cadre of Koch-backed crew members, including: the Cato Institute, the Center for Competitive Politics and the Institute for Justice.

A few months later, a federal court ruling in SpeechNow.org v. FEC allowed for the creation of “independent expenditure-only committees” — political groups soon nicknamed “super PACs.” These super PACs could themselves accept unlimited money from corporations, labor unions and even 501(c)(4) “social welfare” nonprofits and business trade associations that themselves could keep their donors secret.

Four years later in *McCutcheon v. FEC*, the Supreme Court axed limits on how much money a person could give, in aggregate, to political parties, candidate committees and PACs. The practical effect: people are now allowed to directly pump hundreds of thousands of dollars more into party and candidate coffers.

Among the organizations involving themselves in the case? The Cato Institute, the Center for Competitive Politics and the Institute for Justice.

Institute for Justice

The Institute for Justice is a nonprofit, libertarian public interest law firm headquartered in Arlington, Virginia, with satellite offices in states including Florida, Minnesota and Arizona.

It was co-founded in 1991 by former Department of Energy Deputy General Counsel Chip Mellor and Clint Bolick, a former assistant at the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Billionaire industrialist Charles Koch provided $350,000 in seed money for the organization.

IFrame Content

The players who have shaped campaign finance »

The Center for Public Integrity combed through tax information for the Institute for Justice and found some of its top donors include the Claws Foundation, Dunn’s Foundation for the Advancement of Right Thinking, Searle Freedom Trust and the Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation, totaling about $19.8 million since 1998. But the largest donor identified for the Institute for Justice was the Robert W. Wilson Charitable Trust, giving more than $15.5 million since 2003, according to tax records.

Wilson was a notable hedge funder and philanthropist who jumped to his death from his New York apartment in 2013.

Donors Trust, a Virginia-based free-market charity and “donor advised” fund that distributes money to charities across states has been the Institute for Justice’s most consistent supporter.

Tax records show that Donors Trust has contributed to the Institute for Justice every year since 2004, giving it more than $1.6 million. Charles Koch’s foundation is one of the heavyweights that holds an account with Donors Trust. Koch’s organization also directly gave the Institute for Justice $9,600, according to 2014 and 2015 tax records. The David H. Koch Foundation gave $250,000 in 2001, according to records.

The Jewish Communal Fund, another donor advised fund, has given $317,050 to the Institute for Justice since 2010, according to tax records. The John Templeton Foundation, an avid promoter of free market ideas, gave $900,000 between 2013 and 2014, according to a review of tax records.

One of its other generous donors, however, is the National Christian Charitable Foundation, which gave almost $2.8 million since 2007.

This donor advised fund typically gives to Christian churches and ministries with a mission of “mobilizing resources by inspiring biblical generosity.”

The political leanings of organizations such as the Institute for Justice are not a basis of scrutiny for the National Christian Charitable Foundation, and they’re mostly unknown to the foundation, Chief Creative Officer Steve Chapman said.

“NCF doesn’t have any stance on campaign finance issues,” he said in a statement. “We don’t hold positions on such political topics, and we don’t hold stances on whether charities to which we make grants should or should not be active on that issue.”

Richard Uihlein, a wealthy conservative donor who increased his political giving after the *Citizens United* decision, gave the Institute for Justice $17,500 between 2014 and 2015. But, he wasn’t the only well-known donor to contribute. The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, which usually contributes to global health and economic development causes, donated $600.

The Institute for Justice has more than 8,000 donors, said Paul Sherman, a senior attorney for the Institute for Justice who specializes in First Amendment litigation. No one donor provides more than 8 percent of its budget. In its most recent fiscal year, donations comprised more than 96 percent of its income, while the rest came from court-ordered awards of attorneys’ fees.

But that doesn’t mean those donors shape the Institute for Justice’s work, Sherman said.

“IJ’s donors give to us because they support our mission,” he said, noting that the organization has litigated in the same areas for more than over 25 years. “We have never taken a case or passed on a case because of pressure from a donor.”

Other notable contributions to the Institute for Justice include $90,000 from the Dick and Betsy DeVos Family Foundation, which was started by U.S. Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos and her husband in 1989. The foundation has given yearly since 2004, except for 2012 and 2014.

‘SpeechNow.org’ victory

The Institute for Justice notched a win in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit in SpeechNow.org v. FEC, a critical lower-court case.

In the case, the Institute for Justice and the Center for Competitive Politics represented David Keating, who now serves as president of the newly renamed Center for Competitive Politics.

Together, the groups questioned whether the federal government had the legal right to make Keating’s SpeechNow.org group register as a political committee — forcing it to adhere to contribution limits for political committees.

The court ruled in SpeechNow.org’s favor, thereby allowing it to raise unlimited amounts of money to independently advocate for or against political candidates. Limits on how much it could receive were found to be in violation of the First Amendment. It was the first time the Citizens United decision was applied in federal courts.

And it gave birth to a kind of political committee that would soon be dubbed a “super PAC.”

Although the Center for Competitive Politics and the Institute for Justice have no formal affiliation, they are “allies in the fight to defend political speech from government regulation,” Sherman said.

Sherman said both organizations have supported each other’s work with amicus briefs, and SpeechNow.org v. FEC was a great match of their strengths.

“CCP’s people had extensive experience with practice before the FEC, and IJ’s people had extensive experience litigating in federal court,” he said. “And we all knew one another. The world of libertarian public-interest lawyers is not huge.”

But the Institute for Justice isn’t always taking up the long, arduous process of going to court. Like other groups that want to provide suggestions and expertise to courts on matters, it has done so through amicus briefs in McConnell, Wisconsin Right to Life, McCutcheon and Citizens United.

The positions that the Institute for Justice has taken on campaign finance issues are made clearer when looking at who funds their endeavors, which include many donor advised funds and conservative-leaning family foundations and charitable groups.

While the Institute for Justice has some history with big money and politics because of its founding relationship with the Kochs, the Center for Competitive Politics can also be counted among the names of Koch beneficiaries.

Center for Competitive Politics

Former FEC Chairman Bradley Smith founded the Center for Competitive Politics in 2005, lamenting the extent of federal regulation on political activity.

The Center for Competitive Politics has waged war against the FEC as litigators, and it has represented others when political free speech is under attack.

David Keating, president of the Center for Competitive Politics, said the organization is simply honoring the guarantees of the First Amendment more so than political ideology or deregulation.

IFrame Content

The players who have shaped campaign finance »

The Center for Competitive Politics prides itself on being part of changing the scope of campaign finance laws since its founding, while noting that there is still more freedom to be sought, especially when it comes to contribution and disclosure rules.

“Our country didn’t have campaign contribution limits until the 1970s,” he said. “I don’t see there’s any evidence that it’s made people we’re electing better than they were before the 1970s.”

Keating said government should make it easier for average citizens to become politically involved and, therefore, it should rethink contribution laws.

While the Center for Competitive Politics has not objected to disclosure by candidates and PACs, it is not in favor of pushing for more disclosure. Doing so, said Keating, would result in more difficult fundraising for groups and misleading disclosure information.

“Disclosure is where a lot of the action is right now,” he said. “That’s going to be in the courts and we may well be the ones representing the plaintiffs.”

Because the Center for Competitive Politics’ mission is the protection of free political speech, its legal argument in Wisconsin Right to Life, McCutcheon and Citizens United cases are just part of that mission.

The terrain of money and politics has the Center for Competitive Politics’ opponents questioning whether its ideals are truly its own — or if it’s just the mouthpiece for its wealthy benefactors.

Although the Center for Competitive Politics does not disclose the identity of its donors, the Center for Public Integrity’s review of tax and other financial records indicates the group is funded by a bevy of right-leaning organizations.

Since 2006, the Center for Competitive Politics has received more than $5.3 million from Donors Capital Fund, $1.3 million from the Robert W. Wilson Charitable Trust and $511,000 from the Ed Uihlein Family Foundation — itself funded in full by Republican megadonor Richard Uihlein — and $440,000 from the Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation.

As far as its Koch alliances? The Charles Koch Institute gave $20,700 from 2014 to 2015, and the Charles Koch Foundation donated over $57,000 from 2012 to 2015, the Center for Public Integrity’s review of tax and other records shows.

A Koch spokeswoman declined to answer specific questions about the brothers’ giving. In a statement, spokeswoman Tonya Mullins said the Charles Koch Foundation “gives to non-profit organizations and more than 300 colleges and universities around the country that are exploring diverse ideas to meet the challenges of our day.”

The majority of the Charles Koch Institute money goes toward a fellowship program between the Center for Competitive Politics and the Charles Koch Institute, in which both organizations split the cost to pay for the fellow’s compensation, Keating said. The fellowship seeks to groom future free enterprise workers. The Charles Koch Institute provides support for internships and job placement for free-market professional hopefuls.

Keating said the Center for Competitive Politics’ donors give because they’re genuinely concerned with protecting free speech and they have a right to maintain their privacy.

If the Institute for Justice and the Center for Competitive Politics are just mere soldiers in an overall battle plan to charge against reform, their success makes them among the most decorated and skilled in the field.

War on disclosure?...

===

Republican Senator from Kentucky; majority whip in the Senate; major opponent of the McCain-Feingold Bill for Campaign Finance Reform and major proponent of unlimited campaign contributions based upon the First Amendment ; husband of U.S. Secretary of Labor, :{Elaine Chao:(style="color:#0000ff;"):}:.

On December 10, 2003, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld most provisions of the Bipartisan Campaign Finance Reform Act of 2002 in a 5 to 4 decision seen as a victory for campaign finance reform advocates. After a six and a half year effort, the Senate passed BCRA in a 60 to 40 vote on March 20, 2002. President Bush quietly signed the measure into law (Public Law No. 107-155) on March 27, 2002; it took effect on November 6, 2002. The law next faced the Federal Election Commission's rulemaking process and :{legal challenges:(style="color:#0000ff;"):}:. 

On March 21, 2002, the day after the Senate passed the bill, Sen. Mitch McConnell, who termed the measure "unconstitutional" and an "assault" on freedom of speech, announced the heavyweight legal team he has put together to challenge the legislation--Floyd Abrams,:{:{Judge Kenneth Starr:(style="color:#0000ff;"):}::(style="background-color:#ffff00;"):}:, James Bopp, Bobby R. Burchfield, Jan Baran, and Dean :{:{Kathleen M. Sullivan:(style="color:#0000ff;"):}::(style="background-color:#ffff00;"):}:. The very day Bush signed the bill, McConnell filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. Suits by various other groups were consolidated into McConnell v. FEC.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kathleen_Sullivan  stanford

from hawaii case

==

McConnell v. Federal Election Commission, 540 U.S. 93 (2003),[1] is a case in which the United States Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of most of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 (BCRA),often referred to as the **McCain**–**Feingold**Act.

The case takes its name from Senator Mitch McConnell, Republican of Kentucky, and the Federal Election Commission, the federal agency that oversees U.S. campaign finance laws.

It was partially overruled by **Citizens United**v. Federal Election Commission, 558 U.S. 50 (2010).[2]

Contents

History

The case was brought by groups such as the :{**California Democratic Party**:(style="background-color:#fff200"):}:and the:{**National Rifle Associatio**n:(style="background-color:#fff200"):}:, and individuals including U.S. Senator Mitch McConnell, then the Senate Majority Whip, who argued that the legislation was an unconstitutional infringement on their :{First Amendment:(style="background-color:#fff200"):}: rights.Senator McConnell had been a longtime opponent of BCRA in the Senate, and had led several Senate:{**filibusters**:(style="background-color:#fff200"):}:to block its passage.

In early 2002, a multi-year effort by Senators John McCain and Russell Feingold to reform the way money is raised and spent on political campaigns culminated in the passage of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 (the so-called McCain-Feingold bill). Itskey provisions were 1) a ban on unrestricted ("soft money")donations made directly to political parties (often by corporations, unions, or wealthy individuals) and on the solicitation of those donations by elected officials; 2)limits on the advertising that unions, corporations, and non-profit organizations can engage in up to 60 days prior to an election; and 3) restrictions on political parties' use of their funds for advertisingon behalf of candidates (in the form of "issue ads" or "coordinated expenditures").

In June, 2003, the D.C. Circuit issued a ruling on the constitutionality of the law, but the ruling never took effect because the case was immediately appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Oral arguments

The Supreme Court heard oral arguments in a special session on September 8, 2003. On Wednesday, December 10, 2003, it issued a complicated decision totaling 272 pages in length, that, with a 5-4 majority, upheld the key provisions of McCain-Feingold including (1) the "electioneering communication" provisions (which required disclosure of and prohibited the use of corporate and union treasury funds to pay for or broadcast cable and satellite ads clearly identifying a federal candidate targeted to the candidate's electorate within 30 days of a primary or 60 days of a general election); and (2) the "soft money" ban (which prohibited federal parties, candidates, and officeholders from raising or spending funds not in compliance with contribution restrictions, and prohibited state parties from using such "soft money" in connection with federal elections).

Opinions

This section requires expansion.

Justices Breyer, Stevens,O'Connor, Souter, and Ginsburg established themajority for two parts of the Court's opinion:

Because the regulations dealt mostly with soft-money contributions that were used to register voters and increase attendance at the polls, not with campaign expenditures (which are more explicitly a statement of political values and therefore deserve more protection),the Court held that the restriction on free speech was minimal.It then found that the restriction was justified by the government's legitimate interest in preventing "both the actual corruption threatened by large financial contributions and... the appearance of corruption" that might result from those contributions.

In response to challenges that the law was too broad and unnecessarily regulated conduct that had not been shown to cause corruption (such as advertisements paid for by corporations or unions), the Court found that such regulation was necessary to prevent the groups from circumventing the law. Justices O'Connor and Stevens wrote that "money, like water, will always find an outlet" and that the government was therefore justified in taking steps to prevent schemes developed to get around the contribution limits.

The Court also rejected the argument that Congress had exceeded its authority to regulate elections under Article I, Section 4 of the Constitution. The Court found that the law only affected state elections in which federal candidates were involved and also that it did not prevent states from creating separate election laws for state and local elections.

Two dissenting opinions were included in the decision:

Three other justices wrote separate opinions on the decision:

Overturned Portions

On July 5, 2007, in Federal Election Commission v. Wisconsin Right to Life, Inc., the Supreme Court ruled that the organizations engaged in genuine discussion of issues were entitled to a broad, "as applied" exemption from the electioneering communications provisions of BCRA (those portions of BCRA that limited advertising that named a particular candidate by name within 30 days of a primary election and 60 days of a general election, if the ad was paid for by a corporation or union). Many observers argue that the exemption crafted by the Court effectively nullifies those provisions of the Act and overrules that portion of McConnell, but the full impact of Wisconsin Right to Life remains to be seen.

See also

References

  1. ^ 540 U.S. 93 (Full text of the decision courtesy of Findlaw.com)
  2. ^ Hasen, Richard L. (2010-01-21). "Money Grubbers: The Supreme Court kills campaign finance reform". Slate.

Further reading

External links

Paul D. Clement, Solicitor General of the United States, has been handling investigations into the Bush administration's controversial U.S. attorney firings at the U.S. Department of Justice since April 2007.[1]

Clement's name, as well as that of Michael Chertoff, has been rumored as a replacement[2] for Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales, "whose tenure has been marred by controversy and accusations of perjury before Congress", who resigned August 27, 2007,[3] and will leave office on September 17, 2007.[4][5] Clement "could remain acting attorney general for an indefinite time after Gonzales leaves."[6]

Clement was nominated March 11, 2004, by President George W. Bush to be Solicitor General at the Department of Justice. On July 4, 2004, he was appointed Acting Solicitor General of the United States to replace former Solicitor General Theodore B. Olson. He was confirmed by the Senate June 8, 2005. Clement had been Principal Deputy Solicitor General previously.

Contents[hide]

Profiles

The July 4, 2004, official DOJ press release] stated that,[7] as Principal Deputy Solicitor General, Clement "represented the United States in 18 arguments before the Supreme Court. He handled cases including the Court's landmark campaign finance decision (McConnell v. FEC), an important decision expanding the rights of individuals with disabilities (Tennessee v. Lane), and the enemy combatant cases (Hamdi v. Rumsfeld and Rumsfeld v. Padilla). Mr. Clement also has represented the United States in important lower court litigation, including cases arising out of the war on terror and the GAO's suit against the Vice President. In addition, as Principal Deputy, Mr. Clement handled a portfolio including issues such as civil rights, religious liberty and government liability."

The March 11, 2005, White House nomination news release[8] said that Clement was then serving at the Justice Department as Acting Solicitor General. "In addition, he also serves as Adjunct Professor at Georgetown University Law Center. Mr. Clement previously served as Partner and Head of Appellate Practice for King & Spalding in Washington, DC. Earlier in his career, he served as Chief Counsel for the United States Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution, Federalism and Property Rights. Mr. Clement earned his bachelor's degree from Georgetown University School of Foreign Service, his master's degree from Cambridge University and his J.D. from Harvard Law School."

Education

Experience

Resources and articles

Related SourceWatch articles

References

  1. ↑ "U.S. Attorney Investigation: Meet The New Boss," TPMmuckraker, April 9, 2007.
  2. ↑ Paul Kiel, "Gonzales Replacement Talk Update," TPMmuckraker, August 27, 2007.
  3. ↑ Gonzales' resignation letter dated August 26, 2007, posted by TPMmuckraker, August 27, 2007.
  4. ↑ Pierre Thomas, et al., "Attorney General Gonzales Resigns," ABC News, August 27, 2007.
  5. ↑ "Gonzales Resigns," Think Progress, August 27, 2007.
  6. ↑ "5 Top Contenders for Attorney General," NewsMax, August 28, 2007.
  7. ↑ News Release: "Paul Clement to Serve as Acting Solicitor General," U.S. Department of Justice, July 4, 2004.
  8. ↑ News Release: Personnel Announcement, Office of the White House Press Secretary, March 11, 2007.

External articles

Categories: U.S. government | Law | George W. Bush