Attorneys planning legal challenge speak out

March 6, 2002

ATLANTA/WASHINGTON, DC: The U.S. Supreme Court-tested Southeastern Legal Foundation, along with former Independent Counsel Ken Starr, today issued a sharp rebuttal to the "crass" statement issued by Shays-Meehan supporters which defends the constitutionality of the bill.

"Despite overwhelming opinions of most legal scholars across the nation, Shays-Meehan supporters continue to belittle the First Amendment concerns raised by provisions of the bill," said Phil Kent, SLF President. "Let's set the record straight, both before the expected U.S. Senate vote approving the bill, before President Bush signs the bill, and before we file suit in federal court challenging the law -- Shays-Meehan gags free speech, forbids open association with candidates and elected officials, and chills all legitimate public debate in the key weeks before an election."

Kent points out that congressional attorneys reviewing Shays-Meehan express deep concern about the cavalier attitude of so-called 'reformers' to the very real threats to free speech: 'There appears to be a dangerous perception that the First Amendment is a loophole that must be closed,' referring to the Shays-Meehan prohibitions on issue ads 60 days before a general election and 30 days before a primary.

"So-called reformers, who whine ceaselessly about ending the power of soft money in politics, nevertheless rejected a substitute bill in the U.S. House which banned soft money without gagging free speech," said Kent. "That leaves the obvious question, if not just banning soft money, then what is the real agenda?" SLF attorneys proffered the following assessment:

1. By banning issue advocacy ads before elections, reformers will ensure that special interest voices are silenced from questioning political candidates on key issues.
2. By strangling the definition of "association" in terms of limiting any communication with campaigns and officials, reformers will ensure that organized opposition to candidates remains disorganized.
3. In combination with a ban on soft money for national political parties and limits on state political parties, these elements ensure incumbency protection by forbidding open criticism of elected officials.
4. By banning speech, money and freedom of association, the system of open elections will begin to disintegrate -- leaving the door wide open for the real ambition of reformers -- TAXPAYER FINANCING FOR POLITICAL CAMPAIGNS.

For More Information Contact:
Media Relations
media@southeasternlegal.org
(404) 365-8500