In two lawsuits, the Republican National Committee directly challenged post-Watergate restrictions on the ability of parties and candidates to work hand-in-hand on political campaigns and the law Congress passed in 2002 banning unlimited contributions know as "soft money."

Republican National Committee Chairman Robert M. "Mike" Duncan said in an interview that the suits were designed to "strengthen the Republican Party and bring a more level playing field to campaign finance."

At issue are two distinct laws — one passed in the aftermath of the Watergate abuses of the early 1970s and the other a six-year-old ban on soft money. Both laws have been upheld by the Supreme Court, but since then the court has a new Chief Justice in John G. Roberts and a new justice in Samuel Alito.

The lawsuits come after the defeat of Republican presidential candidate John McCain, a fierce opponent of soft money and one of the authors of the 2002 legislation that banned the parties from raising unlimited money from corporations, unions and wealthy individuals.

The RNC lawsuit said the total ban on soft money amounts to a violation of the First Amendment's guarantees of free speech and association.

Critics say the suit is merely an attempt by the RNC to test the law against a reconstituted Supreme Court.

"This effort to go to the Supreme Court appears to be based on the idea that we have different justices so the prior decisions should just be thrown out, and that is just dead wrong," said Fred Wertheimer, president of Democracy 21, a campaign money watchdog group.

The RNC wants to be able to raise unlimited contributions for "non-federal" activities — that is, for expenditures unrelated to presidential, U.S. Senate or House of Representative elections. The money, the complaint says, would be used to help elect Republicans to state offices, to finance congressional redistricting efforts by state Republican parties following the 2010 census, and to finance lobbying efforts on federal legislative issues.

The RNC's effort to permit fundraising for state parties and state candidates would reverse a key component of the 2002 law that McCain helped write with Democratic Sen. Russell Feingold of Wisconsin and House members Christopher Shays, R-Conn., and Martin Meehan, D-Mass.

Under that law, the national parties can only raise money under federal fundraising restrictions. The law banned the national parties from raising so-called soft-money — that is, unlimited amounts of money from corporations, unions or individuals. If the national parties can raise money for state parties or for state candidates, they would adjust that fundraising to state limits, some of which are far more lenient than federal law.

Attorney Joe Sandler told a panel of the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on Wednesday that his clients' lawsuit against the federal Drug Enforcement Administration should move forward so that the farmers might have a chance to use their state permits to grow hemp for seeds and oil. The lawsuit was dismissed in U.S. District Court.

At the heart of the dispute is whether the farmers — state Rep. David Monson and Wayne Hauge — can cultivate hemp under North Dakota laws without violating the federal Controlled Substances Act.

Hemp is related to the illegal drug marijuana, and under the federal law, parts of an industrial hemp plant are considered controlled substances.

Sandler argued that while hemp plants might fall under the federal law, the law doesn't apply because the parts of the plant that could be considered a drug would never leave the farms. He also underlined the differences between marijuana and the crop the farmers want to grow, saying the judge who dismissed the case incorrectly treated marijuana and hemp as the same thing.

Industrial hemp is legally grown in several countries, including Canada, and the U.S. imports many products made from hemp seed, oil and fiber. The plant has much lower concentrations of the psychoactive chemical THC found in marijuana plants.

Melissa Patterson, a Justice Department attorney, told the appeals panel that Congress does have the power to regulate the crop in this case and that Congress has determined through the Controlled Substances Act that the plants, whether used for drugs or not, should be restricted.

Patterson also argued that the farmers must, as directed by Congress, first go through a registration process with the DEA to grow hemp rather than taking the issue to court. The farmers' registration request with the DEA is still pending.

Sam Juniper says his health benefits weren't supposed to change after he retired in 2000 from M&G Polymers.

But he received a $40 bill in 2002 after the company's new provider, Aetna Insurance, refused to cover the cost of some blood work.

He challenged that in Mason County court in 2003 and won every decision all the way to the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond, Va. The appeals court ruled in his favor on Oct. 10.

Lawyer Mark Underwood handled Juniper's case for free and says small bills like this add up over time.

Juniper says he is still waiting for his $40 refund check, which he plans to frame and hang on his wall.

The justices seemed reluctant to accept the arguments put forth by the religious group known as the Summum that once a government accepts any donations for display in a public park, it must accept them all.

"Do we have to put any president who wants to be on Mt. Rushmore?" Chief Justice John Roberts asked.

Yet the court also was uncomfortable with the position of Pleasant Grove City, Utah, which rejected the Summum's request to erect a monument similar to a Ten Commandments display that has stood in the city's Pioneer Park since 1971.

Justice David Souter wondered how the city could accept the Ten Commandments display and then say, "'We will not on identical terms take the Summum monument because we don't agree with the message.' Why isn't that a First Amendment violation?"

The Salt Lake City-based Summum wants to erect its "Seven Aphorisms of Summum" monument in the park.

The Summum argued, and a federal appeals court agreed, that Pleasant Grove can't allow some private donations in its public park and reject others.

Even though Patrick O'Donnell doesn't have the money he agreed to pay, a lawyer for some two dozen victims says getting the former priest to own up to his actions will help them put the abuse behind them.

"I think we achieved our goal, which was to get a judgment, and hopefully we can deprive him of as many assets as we can," the victims' lawyer, Timothy Kosnoff, said Monday.

O'Donnell avoids a civil trial that was scheduled this week. A court hearing to record the settlement is set for Wednesday.

O'Donnell's lawyer, John Bergman of Seattle, declined to release details of the settlement, saying documents were still being prepared. "We want to put an end to this case," Bergman said.

It said it decided to file for bankruptcy protection because it was facing pressure from vendors who threatened to withhold products during the holiday shopping period. The company also said it cut 700 more jobs at its headquarters, after announcing a week ago that it would close 20 percent of its stores and lay off thousands of workers.

Circuit City filed under Chapter 11 of the bankruptcy code, which will allow it to hold off creditors and continue operations while it develops a reorganization plan. Its Canadian operations also filed for similar protection.

Doing so "should provide us with the opportunity to strengthen our balance sheet, create a more efficient expense structure and ultimately position the company to compete more effectively," James A. Marcum, vice chairman and acting president and chief executive, said in a statement.

The city temporarily shut down performances of "Naked Boys Singing!" in August 2005 while it considered the Milwaukee Gay Arts Center's application for a theater permit. The group later received a permit and reopened the show.

Larry Dupuis, legal director for the American Civil Liberties Union of Wisconsin, which is handling the case, said the city's enforcement seemed unusually zealous, even given the musical's content.

"I think the title made it kind of controversial," Dupuis said. "But of course, `The Full Monty' has nudity in it, and that doesn't get it threats to shut it down."

The lawsuit, filed Monday, says the city ordinance is unconstitutional because it gives officials "unbridled discretion" over when permits must be obtained and how applications will be handled. It also says the law could be used to restrict certain viewpoints.

Eileen Force, a spokeswoman for Mayor Tom Barrett, declined to comment on the lawsuit, and a call to the office of City Attorney Grant Langley rang unanswered Monday afternoon.

Dupuis said few, if any, other nonprofit theater groups have been required to get permits from the city.