Press reports indicate that the NRA, a plaintiff in the BCRA case, has filed today for a stay of the three-judge court's decision. 
 
-----Original Message----- 
From: Bauer, Bob-WDC [mailto:RBauer@perkinscoie.com] 
Sent: Wed 5/7/2003 4:06 PM 
To: 'Rick.Hasen@lls.edu'; 'election-law@majordomo.lls.edu' 
Cc: 
Subject: Re: one more point on factual findings




	I am travelling today and less able to rant and rave on our favorite 
	subject. I did note, however, the exchange between Don Simon and Rick Hasen 
	about whether Common Cause or perhaps other reform organizations had 
	questionably claimed "victory". 

	Without naming names, this is what one estimable organization offered today 
	as part of a general release and analysis of the subject: 


	"This week, a consensus has emerged among legal experts that the decision 
	left the majority of the Reform Act's provisions intact, although initial 
	press reports were correct in noting that two key provisions of the new 
	campaign finance regime were altered by the court (soft money and issue 
	advocacy).  Parties on both sides of the case have begun filing notices of 
	appeal at the U.S. Supreme Court." 


	A "consensus" among legal experts? Which "majority" of the 
	provisions--including the ones not decided onjusticiability grounds? And if 
	you believe, as I do, that no very serious constitutional issues impede 
	adoption of the hard money limit increases, then I would say that roughly 
	six core provisions" raising issues of that kind were before the Court: 

	1. National party soft money ban 

	2. State and local party soft money ban 

	3. Prohibition on officeholder and candidate fundraising 

	4. Coordination Provisions 

	5. The Party choice provision 

	6. Corporate and union "issue ads" 

	Now I have omitted the minor child contribution ban and some other 
	provisions--not unimportant but not of central importance. 

	I count four sections invalidated in whole or in part--i.e. not "intact". A 
	total of 66 per cent of the provisions--OTHER than minor children, also 
	invalidated--that were central to the reform effort and hotly disputed fall 
	in whole or in part to constitutional challenge. 

	This is not "spin"? 




<- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ->
This message is for the use of the intended recipient only.  It is
from a law firm and may contain information that is privileged and
confidential.  If you are not the intended recipient any disclosure,
copying, future distribution, or use of this communication is
prohibited.  If you have received this communication in error, please
advise us by return e-mail, or if you have received this communication
by fax advise us by telephone and delete/destroy the document.