WASHINGTON — Sen. Mitch McConnell vowed Wednesday to become lead plaintiff in a legal challenge against campaign-finance reform.

        The Kentucky Republican said he was assembling a legal team, and interest groups that also consider the legislation unconstitutional likely would join him.

McConnell

        Sen. Jim Bunning, R-Ky., also voted against the bill Wednesday, along with Sen. Mike DeWine, R-Ohio, and Sen. George Voinovich, R-Ohio.

        Sen. Richard Lugar, R-Ind., and Sen. Evan Bayh, D-Ind., both voted for the legislation.

        Mr. McConnell, who had fought different forms of the legislation over several years, said he would follow the model of former New York Republican Sen. James Buckley, whose opposition to Watergate-era campaign reforms led to the landmark Buckley v. Vallejo ruling.

        The Supreme Court ruled in the 1976 case that candidates or advocates could spend unlimited amounts of their own money on political speech but that federal limits on campaign contributions to candidates were appropriate to prevent corruption.

        The Senate approved a bill Wednesday that would ban unlimited “soft money” donations to national political parties and restrict television and radio issue advertising on candidates close to federal elections. The bill also would increase the amount of money people can contribute directly to candidates and index the amount to inflation. It now moves to the White House for the president's signature.

        Mr. McConnell said he favors the increase in direct contributions to candidates but argues that the soft money and issue advertising restrictions are unconstitutional infringements on free speech. The American Civil Liberties Union and other interest groups have raised similar objections.
       

Question of free speech
        Mr. DeWine helped include an amendment that would enable candidates facing wealthy, self-financed opponents to accept campaign contributions over federal limits. But Mr. DeWine did not vote for final passage of the bill because he insists that it restricts free speech.

        “There is no question that we need campaign-finance reform,” he said. “However, silencing speech, particularly the critical core political speech our founding fathers had in mind when drafting our Bill of Rights, is not the solution.”

        Mr. Voinovich said the bill would divert soft-money donations to interest groups that do not have to follow the same federal disclosure requirements as political parties.

        “If people were frustrated with campaign culture before this, they are going to be outright angry when they see that this bill changes nothing,” he said.
       

Falmouth has eye on river
River high, but no flooding yet
Officer Jorg quits before interviews
Legal issues can complicate investigations
$5 million gift will combat MS
Finance reform bill heads to court
Time works against sex-abuse prosecutors
City schools amend new-building plan
Concealed weapon case argued
Privatizing motion falls short in council
Racial profiling suit discussed
Shapes, shades appear for new home of Reds
Uniforms coming to elementaries
Tristate A.M. Report
HOWARD: Some Good News
PULFER: By predators
RADEL: Golden rule
Home built for pregnant teens
Milford evaluates new school site
Plan to widen road contested
Policeman indicted, held in death
Reading parents seek answers from board
Service unit keeps community clean, offenders from jail
Springdale honors three citizens, two officers
Audit slams retardation plan, services
Campus memorial will be held for 6 in crash
Concealed gun bill rolls on
IRS agent says Traficant failed to report income
Maryland wooing OSU's president
Ohio's short by $400M
Safety at hockey games questioned
School funding pact due today
Gambling bill on House agenda
Interim diocese leader named
Pop machines stay in school-food bill