McCain-Feingold's opponents fight for time in court

• Article
• Comments ()
• Click-2-Listen
• Videos

By

The extraordinary four hours allocated for the upcoming Supreme Court hearing on new campaign-spending restrictions wasn't nearly enough to head off guerrilla warfare among the 57 lawyers for challengers seeking time to speak in court.

Collectively they seek three hours and 15 minutes of argument time. The court allotted two hours. Two hours was reserved for federal agencies and members of Congress defending the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act -- the McCain-Feingold law's complex revision of finance statutes that might govern next year's presidential and congressional elections.

Among the key contested provisions of the multifaceted law are new contribution limits to candidates, a ban on "soft money" given to political parties, sharp restrictions on the content of issue advertising near elections and a ban on contributions by minors.

Infighting was sparked among challengers during the legal paperwork fired back and forth this month when Kenneth W. Starr, the former independent counsel who was speaking for seven of the 11 groups of appellants, asked the justices to give his coalition of "aligned appellants" the two hours and let others, including the National Rifle Association, make their points in writing.

"To the extent that those plaintiffs have distinctive theories or claims, they have been sufficiently aired in the briefs on the merits," Mr. Starr told the court on behalf of 34 coalition lawyers whose dozens of clients include Sen. Mitch McConnell, Kentucky Republican, the American Civil Liberties Union, the National Right to Life Committee, the AFL-CIO and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.

That infuriated NRA attorney Charles J. Cooper and McLean attorney William J. Olson, who represents Rep. Ron Paul, Texas Republican, and a group with related interests. Both challenged Mr. Starr's assertion to the court that plaintiffs' attorneys were consulted on timing.

Mr. Cooper and Mr. Olson said in interviews that they were not included in planning any scheduling proposals and contended that Mr. Starr seeks to silence voices that conflict with coalition clients.

"The Paul people are as much opposed to the McConnell position as they are to the government's position," Mr. Olson said.

"We have some distinctive arguments the court will not hear unless it hears from us, and the coalition thought if the argument I want to make is made to the court it will be accepted. That's the argument that McConnell and his lawyers don't want to be heard," Mr. Cooper said for the NRA, which he called the nation's most prolific political voice, accounting for more television time than all other issue-advocacy groups and unions combined.