RNC Files Suit Over Campaign Law

The Republican National Committee, which usually operates as a political arm of the White House, filed a lawsuit in federal court Tuesday seeking to overturn major portions of the landmark campaign finance legislation signed by President Bush.

Also challenging the law in court were the California Democratic and Republican parties, contending in a joint suit that some provisions place unconstitutional limits on state and local parties.

With their suits, the party groups joined dozens of plaintiffs objecting to one part or another of the new law that will ban unlimited donations to national political parties and restrict political advertising by interest groups. The law takes effect after the elections in November.

The suits will be considered by a three-judge panel in Washington. The panel has set a December date for oral arguments. Appeals, certain no matter which way the panel rules, will be taken directly to the Supreme Court.

Tuesday was the deadline for filing suits to be heard on that legal fast track.

The day’s developments underscored how political operatives in both parties, inside and outside Washington, have become critics of a law that won congressional approval with support from a majority of Democrats and a minority bloc of Republicans.

The RNC suit was especially striking because it appeared to put the national party apparatus somewhat at odds with the president’s public position. Bush quietly signed the bill into law in March. At the time, he expressed misgivings about portions of the bill but said that overall he believed it would improve the political system.

But national GOP Chairman Marc Racicot said Tuesday that the committee had to act to “defend the political party system and our constitutional rights at the local, state and national level.”

Racicot, whom Bush chose for the RNC post last year, added, “When Republicans face unconstitutional obstructions of political activity, the RNC is obligated to protect and defend the equal access of all Americans to engage in protected political speech.”

A spokesman for the RNC, Jim Dyke, said the decision to sue was the committee’s alone. A White House spokesman, Scott McClellan, agreed.

However, it was unclear whether White House aides weighed in on the lawsuit. Dyke said he believed Racicot did not seek the White House’s opinion. McClellan declined to answer directly whether Bush aides were consulted.

Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), the chief author of the new campaign law, said he was unfazed by the new suits--but curious about them.

“We all know the RNC is under the orders of the White House, under the control of the White House,” McCain said. “I’d be curious who told the RNC to do it.”

In its suit, the RNC alleges that core parts of the law violate the Constitution by intruding on state and local elections and by infringing on the national party’s ability to speak out through political ads.

In recent years, much of that advertising has been paid for by the unlimited donations to the national parties known as soft money. Banning those contributions was the new law’s key objective.

The RNC is joined in its lawsuit by, among others, the Republican parties of Colorado, New Mexico and Ohio.

The California suit includes the state parties and two local committees: Yolo County Democrats and Santa Cruz County Republicans. It alleges that fund-raising limits on state and local party groups in the new law are unconstitutional.

Lance Olson, general counsel of the California Democratic Party, said the suit is “focused solely” on state and local concerns.

“The fundamental problem is the federalization of the election process,” Olson said. He complained that the law creates “an incredibly broad definition” of federal election activity, ensnaring state and local groups in fund-raising limits that should apply only to national parties and federal campaigns.