by Dave Workman
Senior Editor

NRA Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre had vowed to take the battle to court even before the late-night vote.

"Shays-Meehan attacks the very heart of the First Amendment," said LaPierre. "We will fight this infringement right up to the US Supreme Court on behalf of all Americans."

LaPierre called Shays-Meehan "the most direct affront to the freedom of American citizens I've seen in my lifetime on the First Amendment."

"This bill," he told Gun Week, "creates two classes of speech in this country, the favored class, which is the media conglomerates and the politicians, and another class, the citizens. It is an outrage."

Gottlieb said that the NRA will hardly be alone in that fight. While Gottlieb does not oppose restrictions on soft money contributions to political parties, he objects strongly to bans on advertising for two full months before a general election. That, he said, would destroy the ability of organizations like CCRKBA to educate voters on issues, and the positions of candidates on those issues.

"I suspect you will see a legion of civil rights organizations joining in a court challenge," Gottlieb said, "and we would certainly be among them. It would not surprise me if the ACLU takes the lead, however. But we will have to see if the bill passes, and if the President actually signs it."

Along with gun rights organizations, the US Chamber of Commerce immediately announced that if the bill becomes law, "we'll be at the courthouse door."

Likewise, Phil Kent, president of the Southeast Legal Foundation, was quoted by The Washington Times, stating, "We are ready, willing and able to sue. Under Shays-Meehan, the authors of The Federalist Papers may have suffered prison time and heavy fines, an irony that underscores the fundamental nature of political speech."

The reform package, sponsored by Rep. Martin T. Meehan (D-MA) and Rep. Christopher Shays (R-CT) was passed following a marathon 16-hour session that saw rejection of several proposed amendments. One of those amendments would have specifically exempted pre-election advertising related to the Second Amendment.

"Running scared from the horrible disclosures surrounding the Enron scandal, the US House of Representatives massacred the First Amendment rights of every grassroots interest group in the country," Gottlieb said. "And rather than do it in the light of day, they waited until the early morning hours of St. Valentine's Day, while the nation slept, to adopt legislation that is a direct assault on freedom of speech."

Added LaPierre: "The very idea that these politicians would dare say that some citizens group cannot run an ad against them, criticizing a piece of legislation or their candidacy 60 days prior to an election; who do they think they are? King George threw the colonists in jail for pamphleteering. What's the difference between that and this bill?"

David Mason, chairman of the Federal Election Commission (FEC), may have already laid the foundation for a court challenge. He told reporters that certain provisions of the bill "are so complex, so vague, or so broad as to be unworkable, or unenforceable." He also said some provisions, specifically the 30/60-day advertising blackout, "are flatly unconstitutional."

That same sentiment was expressed by Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-KY), the senate's leading opponent of campaign finance reform. He contended that segments of the bill are unconstitutional, and promised to be the lead plaintiff in challenging the legislation.

Lawyers for both sides of the issue cite various legal precedents to support their positions, but neither side seems willing to bet on a complete win in court.

Crossing Party Lines
The final vote found both Democrats and Republicans crossing party lines, but more people jumped the GOP ship than moved in the other direction. Voting for the bill were 198 Democrats, 41 Republicans and one independent. Twelve Democrats joined 176 Republicans in voting against the measure. (See the final roll call vote on to the right.)

CCRKBA Executive Director Joe Waldron noted that many of those who voted for the Shays-Meehan package are also long-time backers of restrictive gun control.

"It's a sad day when so many members of Congress who are already after our Second Amendment rights are now after our First Amendment rights as well," Waldron stated. "If you look at the vote, many of the people who supported the so-called campaign finance reform bill are also the most ardent proponents of gun control."

In addition to the proposal that would have exempted Second Amendment-related advertising, Republicans had offered several other amendments in an attempt to break apart the Shays-Meehan coalition, and force the bill to a conference committee. Backers of the bill acknowledged that going to conference would almost certainly have doomed the package.

Among those amendments was a proposal by House Majority Leader Dick Armey (R-TX) to suspend restrictions on soft money advertising related to civil rights issues. It was rejected 237-185.

Another Armey amendment, which stated that nothing in the bill could violate the First Amendment, was rejected 237-188. A third Armey proposal would have banned all soft money immediately, and it was rejected 249-179.

They also approved, 218-211, an amendment from Rep. Zach Wamp (R-TN) to raise limits on individual contributions to House candidates from $1,000 to $2,000 per election.

Perhaps not surprisingly to Shays-Meehan critics-who have long argued that the bill restricts speech by special interest organizations but not the press-an amendment sponsored by Rep. Gene Green (D-TX) striking language that would have required broadcasters to sell advertising time to candidates at the lowest commercial rates was passed, 327-101.

LaPierre has long argued that the big media conglomerates, including AOL/Time Warner, General Electric, which owns NBC, and Viacom-owned CBS, are protected by so-called campaign finance reform. In speeches across the country, he has warned that the media would be empowered by this legislation to give candidates they favor far more air time and exposure than candidates they oppose.

'Democrat Loophole'
Furious Republicans complained that the bill contained a "multi-million dollar loophole" that will benefit Democrats. A provision was inserted that would, Republicans contended, allow Democrats to exchange soft money for hard money that they could use in this fall's campaigns. Language was crafted that clarified just how different kinds of campaign donations may be used.

Under the agreement, according to various reports, political parties may now raise unlimited amounts of soft money from groups and individuals, provided the funds are not used to directly advocate the election or defeat of a specific candidate.

Democrats traditionally have a smaller donor base from which to raise hard money, but they get nearly twice as much soft money as do Republicans, from a wide array of left-wing special interest groups, many with anti-gun agendas.

Curiously, according to Roll Call, several congressmen blamed the problem on attorneys from the liberal interest group Common Cause. That organization is now headed by Scott Harshbarger, former Massachusetts attorney general, and an avowed anti-gunner. Gun Week reported in the Feb. 10 issue that when he was attorney general, Harshbarger formed a "secret gun group" within the Massachusetts Consumer Protection Agency in 1995 to "brainstorm a means to attack gun manufacturers."

Democrats, while currently mouthing sentiments to steer clear of the gun control issue, because it hurts them in the polls, have yet to denounce the issue or remove it from their national platform. Many gun rights activists fear that Democrats will quickly jump back on the gun control bandwagon if they capture the House this fall.

Turning Shays-Meehan into law is not a done deal, however. It may face a filibuster in the Senate, where the McCain-Feingold bill, sponsored by liberal Sens. John McCain (R-AZ) and Russell Feingold (D-WI) passed 59-41 last year.

Court challenges looming on the horizon if the bill becomes law may have precedent on their side. Under a 1976 Supreme Court decision in the case of Buckley v. Valeo, political speech is protected by the First Amendment. The American Conservative Union (ACU), which has condemned House members who voted for Shays-Meehan, complained that the bill nullifies that landmark ruling.

Last year, ACU issued a report entitled Who's Buying Campaign Finance 'Reform?' in which it identified several ultra-liberal foundations and wealthy Democrat donors as being behind the so-called campaign finance reform movement.