|
Brief on free press rights before
Supreme Court
|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|
Dear freedom fighters,
We did it! The "Common Sense" of legal briefs
has been written. Our attorneys, Bill Olson,
Herb Titus, and John Miles (along with the
staff at William J. Olson, P.C.) burned the
midnight oil to deliver the most candid and
powerful legal briefs I've ever read.
Our goal was simple - get the Justice's
attention. Someday, if you meet me in person,
I'll be happy to explain some of the intricate
decisions we made, but our opponents (including
the other plaintiffs) read these emails, and
with the case still pending, I can't afford to
publish many elements of our strategy.
One of the people who has been quite helpful to
us from the outset of this effort was
RealCampaignReform.org co-founder Perry Willis.
All along Perry maintained, "We need to put the
proper tools in Justice Thomas' hands and let
him go to work on his fellow justices."
As we submit this brief, I'm convinced we've
done just that.
Justice Thomas indicated in the 1995 Colorado I
case that Buckley v. Valeo should not be
applied and hinted that it should be
overturned. Then in the Shrink-PAC case, he
actually wrote a dissenting opinion, with
Justice Scalia joining him in calling for the
overturning of Buckley (Justice Souter, writing
for the majority, responded by saying that they
couldn't overturn Buckley because no party to
the case had asked them to consider doing so -
with our case, that's been done). Then, two
years ago, Justice Thomas once again took up
his pen in dissent on the Colorado II case, and
not only did Justice Scalia join him again, but
now Justice Kennedy came on board in calling
for the overturning of Buckley.
With a free press approach, traditionally an
issue important to the "left side" of the
Court, will Justice Thomas be able to add
another Justice or two?
When the left side of the Court realizes that
only the corporate media enjoys an exemption
from campaign finance laws, will they become
indignant?
When they see the effects of this pernicious
law (in the modern era the policy effects
appear to be more important than the words of
the Constitution), will they rule that Buckley
has failed - that it's time to end the
experiment?
We've asked the Supreme Court to basically
ignore the other plaintiffs and defendants, who
will urge them to untangle a Gordian knot.
We've asked them to avoid getting caught up in
the intricate and complicated job of unraveling
the other arguments they hear - to avoid
handling this case in the poor fashion the
District Court did.
Our case stands out. We provide the sword with
which they can simply cut the knot.
I hope you can make time to read the brief. You
can read it by clicking here:
http://www.realcampaignreform.org/reply_brief_final.pdf
(You'll need the Adobe Acrobat Reader)
For those who've given $76 or more to this case
since July 18 when we announced the battle with
the McConnell Seven, you'll be receiving a copy
in the mail, per our promise. We expect those
to go out next week.
To all who've made this case possible, thanks
for joining us on the front lines.
Jim Babka
President
RealCampaignReform.org, Inc.
|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|
RCR Report is the email advisory service of RealCampaignReform.org -- a
nonprofit, nonpartisan, educational and lobbying organization dedicated to
promoting free and open elections and a robust, participatory democracy for all
Americans.
|
