Judge Karen Henderson of the US Appeals Court - Bush I Appointee
District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly - Clinton Appointee
Judge Richard Leon - Bush 2 Appointee
This is the panel of judges that "ripped the guts out of the Campaign
Finance Reform legislation" (my words).
Question: Which 2 judges voted to do this?
The descenting Judge, what was his/her reason for descent?
Could you tell me any bio-information and contact information on these
judges and how to get this sort of information?
I would really welcome any researcher's comments on this decision,
pros and cons as well as their/your speculations on why the particular
judge voted the way he/she did. We simply must do something to reform
campaign finance. What are any of your ideas?
Sorry this took so long. It could not have been better answered.
Hello.
Judges Richard Leon and Karen Henderson were the two judges who voted
to strike down campaign finance reform's "soft money ban."
"The two Republican-appointed judges — Henderson and Leon — voted to
strike down the soft-money ban."
source: MSNBC
http://www.msnbc.com/news/908586.asp?0cv=NB10
This was a very complex case, and three judges each issued separate
rulings. The judges agreed on certain things but disagreed on others.
You can download the judges' actual rulings from uscourts.gov:
http://lsmns2o.gtwy.uscourts.gov/dcd/mcconnell-2002-ruling.html
I particularly direct your attention to Per Curiam Opinion of Judge
Kollar-Kotelly and Judge Leon.
http://lsmns2o.gtwy.uscourts.gov/dcd/02cv582a.pdf
[ Note that this document is in PDF format, so the Adobe Acrobat
Reader is required. If you don't have that, visit Adobe's web site:
http://www.adobe.com/products/acrobat/readstep2.html ]
Notice that the judges' rulings are summarized in a chart on pages 12
through 15 of the Per Curiam Opinion. The chart summarizes 20
different rulings made by judges. A quick review of the chart
indicates that Judge Henderson was the toughest critic of the campaign
finance law. In 15 of the 20 rulings, Judge Henderson declared the
law unconstitutional. Judge Leon declared the law unconstitutional in
10 of the rulings. Judge Kollar-Kotelly declared the law
unconstitutional in 4 of the rulings.
Thus, it's pretty clear that Judge Henderson found the law mostly
unconstitutional, while Judge Kollar-Kotelly found it mostly
constitutional. Judge Leon was something of a swing vote on the
various issues.
CNN's web site has a pretty good summary of the key rulings:
(1) "In two 2-1 votes, it ruled that political parties can raise
corporate and union contributions for general party-building
activities such as get-out-the-vote drives and voter registration but
cannot use them for issue advertising or candidate-specific
activities."
(2) "The court ruled 3-0 to uphold a ban on the solication of soft
money by federal candidates and officeholders for federal campaigns."
(3) "Voting 2-1, the court struck down a provision barring a range of
interest groups from airing issue ads mentioning federal candidates in
those candidates' districts in the month before a primary election and
within two months of a general election. In a decision the law's
sponsors call a victory, it upheld a backup provision in the law that
barred a range of groups from airing ads that promote, support, attack
or oppose a candidate at any time."
(4) "In a 2-1 decision, the court upheld a tougher standard for
determining how far interest groups, political parties and candidates
can coordinate election activity before interest group or party
spending is considered a donation to a candidate subject to federal
limits."
(5) "Ruling unanimously, the court struck down as unconstitutional a
provision banning minors from contributing to national party
committees or federal candidates."
source: CNN.com "Court strikes blow to campaign finance law"
http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/05/02/campaign.finance.ruling.ap/index.html
Also see:
source: "U.S. Court Issues Discordant Ruling on Campaign Law,"
The New York Times, May 2, 2003
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/05/03/politics/03DONA.html?ex=1052539200&en=8d169062c1a9aa15&ei=5062&partner=GOOGLE
----------
Biographies
Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly
Biography:
http://www.dcd.uscourts.gov/kotelly-bio.html
Contact Information:
Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
333 Constitution Ave., NW
Washington, DC 20001
(202) 354-3340
Judge Richard J. Leon
Biography:
http://www.dcd.uscourts.gov/leon-bio.html
Contact Information:
Judge Richard J. Leon
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
333 Constitution Ave., NW
Washington, DC 20001
(202) 354-3580
Judge Karen LeCraft Henderson
Biography:
http://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/court_offices/judges/judges.asp#KLH
Contact Information:
U.S. Court of Appeals
for the D.C. Circuit
333 Constitution Ave. NW
Washington DC 20001
202-216-7000
----------
As for the final part of your question...
After reading through quite a bit of the decision, it seems pretty
clear the judges' rulings reflect a pretty profound philosophical
disagreement. The judges were struggling to balance two competing
interests:
(1) The right of Congress to impose campaign finance restrictions that
it feels are in the public's best interest.
vs.
(2) The rights of U.S. citizens (individuals, unions, interest groups,
etc.) to freedom of expression, even when that expression takes the
form of donating money to political campaigns.
Judge Henderson's opinion emphasizes #2. In her first paragraph, she
asserts that the campaign finance law "breaks faith with the
fundamental principle - understood by our nation's Founding
Generation, inscribed by the First Amendment and repeatedly affirmed
by the U.S. Supreme Court - that 'debate on public issues should be
uninhibited, robust, and wide-open.'"
See: Memorandum Opinion of Judge Henderson:
http://lsmns2o.gtwy.uscourts.gov/dcd/02cv582b.pdf
On the other hand, Judge Kollar-Kotelly's opinion emphasizes #1. She
asserts the crux of this matter is the right of the political branches
(i.e., Congress) to "protect the integrity of federal elections with
carefully tailored legislation legislation addressing corruption or
the appearance of corruption inherent in a system of donor-financed
campaigns."
See: Memorandum Opinion of Judge Kollar-Kotelly:
http://lsmns2o.gtwy.uscourts.gov/dcd/02cv582c.pdf
As indicated above, Judge Leon was something of the "swing vote,"
sometimes agreeing more with Judge Henderson, while at other times
coming down on the side of Judge Kollar-Kotelly.
After reading through the arguments, I have to say that both sides
make some pretty strong arguments. Judge Kollar-Kotelly makes some
excellent points about the need to stop the corrupting influence of
campaign contributions. On the other hand, Judge Henderson's First
Amendment arguments are pretty powerful as well. It's easy sometimes
to just imagine that the big campaign donors are mainly wealthy
corporations out to improperly influence the system, but the truth is
that all sorts of organizations (labor unions, Sierra Club, etc.)
contribute to money to political campaigns . And when we start
talking about restricting anyone's right to participate in the
political process, we are getting into dangerous territory. There are
no simple solutions, and I'd imagine that this case will end up soon
at the U.S. Supreme Court. It's hard to predict how the Supreme Court
will rule. My personal hunch is that, given the U.S. Supreme Court's
historical skepticism of attempts to restrict political expression,
Judge Henderson's approach may be similar to what we'll seem from the
Supreme Court.
That said, I agree with you that something definitely does need to be
done about campaign finance. Perhaps more public financing of
campaigns would help, though I'm not crazy about the idea of the
politicians wasting taxpayers' money on their usual campaign nonsense.
Personally, I think one of the best long-term solutions might be the
expansion of Congress. In 1790, there was one Representative for every
60,000 people. Now, each representative represents about 650,000
people. The upshot of this is that Congress isn't really very
representative. The 435 members of the House of Representatives wield
tremendous power. As such, by targeting them, the campaign donors can
have extraordinary influence. Now, suppose we were to double, triple,
or even quadruple the number of Representatives. Each member would be
proportionally less powerful. The Representatives would be likely more
attuned to their smaller local constituency. Plus, the campaign
donors' resources and influence would have to be spread out more (and
weakened as a result). George Will wrote about this concept couple
years ago, and I thought it made a lot of sense. See:
WashingtonPost.com
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=opinion/columns/willgeorge&contentId=A54921-2001Jan12¬Found=true
search terms:
google news: Kollar-Kotelly, campaign finance
I hope this helps.
 Allergies.. no relief?!?
 Religion in the workplace? |