Speaking here as an advocate in this matter, but certainly with full
confidence in the merits of our position, let me take issue with some
assumptions behind Rick's comments.

Application of the "backup" definition to ads 'run now'? Why exactly not?
The definition is not time-limited, as the primary definition was. And I
have heard night and day how the reform communty is delighted with Leon's
broadening definition that applies the ban. throughout the cycle. 

The Senate campaign in SD is in full gear and thse who doubt it should
consult the local press. And Daschle is a candidate for reelection.

Club for Growth is clearly not expecting to pressure Daschle into adopting
the President's economic program. If this is not a "sham" issue ad,
concerned with damaging Daschle rather than moving him on the issue, what
is?

And I have read much in the decision about the law's appropriate attention
to factors such as ad content, reflecting the election-related intent and
influence of the ad.

And what in any event is the significance of timing? The outcry over issue
advertising focused in large measure on Clinton's off-year ads in 1995. Not
to mention the arguments heard time and again that campaigns are beginning
earlier and earlier and involving more and more money.

The law is what it is, whatever anyone may conclude about its wisdom or
eventual vindication in the courts.

I saw Trevor this am at the Penn symposium and noted this Complaint. I
expected him to volunteer some help from the Campaign 
Legal Center--but he was noncommittal on the whole subject. Perhaps he is
mulling it over.