Bush Will Sign Campaign Finance Bill

Yahoo! News ^ | Mar 25, 2002 | Reuters

[Pay now bill Clinton]

Bush Will Sign Campaign Finance Bill
Mon Mar 25,10:19 AM ET

SAN SALVADOR, El Salvador (Reuters) - President Bush (news - web sites) said on Sunday he would sign landmark campaign finance reform legislation with only a slight hesitation, reflecting his ongoing concerns about the measure.

"I won't hesitate" signing it, Bush said at a joint news conference with Salvadoran President Francisco Flores as the president wrapped up a four-day trip to Latin America. "It will probably take about three seconds to get to the W, I may hesitate on the period, and then rip through the Bush."

The legislation to reduce the influence of money in politics won final congressional approval last week, and Bush has pledged to sign it soon.

The bill would ban unlimited contributions known as "soft money" to national political parties, limit such donations to state and local parties and restrict broadcast ads by outside groups shortly before elections.

Former independent counsel Kenneth Starr, whose investigation of Bill Clinton's sex life resulted in the president's impeachment in 1998, is to lead a legal challenge that will seek to knock down most of the measure as unconstitutional.

Bush said he felt the campaign bill did not fully address the need to require identification of who is funding so-called independent groups that introduce "scurrilous, untrue" television advertisements in the last days of a campaign, as he said happened to him in his 2000 presidential campaign.

"I've always thought that people who pump money into the political system, we ought to know who they are," he said.

Bush said that nonetheless the "bill is a better bill than the current system," but that some parts of it might not stand up to a court challenge.

[cogitator]

its a stupid political move, just how much political capital does he think he has to spend that he can continue to have the support of conservatives? it wasnt moderates or liberals that got him into the goddamned white house.

I found an interesting comment in an article from the Washington ComPost (not that I'm surprised they uncovered a quote that sounded like this):

From Bush, Some Flexibility on Campaign Promises

"When staffers showed up for work at the White House last year, they were given a booklet of "campaign commitments" that would dominate the year. Now, with Bush enjoying lofty poll numbers and the nation on a war footing, GOP strategists believe the president can afford to violate a pledge or two as long as he stays true to his basic principles of strong defense, tax cuts, gun ownership and opposition to abortion. "The Bush people figured out a long time ago there are only a few cardinal points you can't change if you're a Republican," said GOP strategist Tom Cole, a former chief of staff at the Republican National Committee. Otherwise, he said, "you have tremendous leeway."

Looks like Bush is counting on the support of the average Republican and the fickle swing voters currently on his side through thick and thin.

[ArneFufkin]

Number one. I DON'T GIVE A HOOT IN HELL ABOUT EL SALVADOR

When you have time, could you forward to the White House a list of countries that you DO give a hoot in hell about so they can revise the President's international travel schedule? That'd be just super.

[Tuxedo]

I agree with you. The blame falls squarely on the House Repubs for allowing this garbage to get to Bush's desk. They knew the Senate would rubber-stamp it, and they knew Bush had to do the politically savvy thing.. sign the bill. Otherwise, McCain and his ilk would stall all future legislation (including more tax cuts) until he got his way. Had the House killed it, it would never have gotten that far. First off, blame the House Repubs for not having the brass ones, and then ultimately, blame Jeffords, who single-handedly is ruining all sound domestic policy.

[Howlin]

Besides that, Bush TOLD them NO TO COUNT ON THEM TO DO THEIR WORK.

[NittanyLion]

Still no answer, I see.

ROFL. Resorting to assigning people impossible tasks, then claiming victory when they can't accomplish YOUR assignment in 5 minutes?

Why don't you list every quote by a President supporting your position? If you are unable to do so, I'll assume you're wrong.

[Triple]

"Where in the constitution does the president have express authority to veto?" paraphrase of howlin in #49 (duh)

Right here:Section 7. All bills for raising revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with amendments as on other Bills.

Every bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it become a law, be presented to the President of the United States; if he approve he shall sign it, but if not he shall return it, with his objections to that House in which it shall have originated, who shall enter the objections at large on their journal, and proceed to reconsider it. If after such reconsideration two thirds of that House shall agree to pass the bill, it shall be sent, together with the objections, to the other House, by which it shall likewise be reconsidered, and if approved by two thirds of that House, it shall become a law. But in all such cases the votes of both Houses shall be determined by yeas and nays, and the names of the persons voting for and against the bill shall be entered on the journal of each House respectively. If any bill shall not be returned by the President within ten days (Sundays excepted) after it shall have been presented to him, the same shall be a law, in like manner as if he had signed it, unless the Congress by their adjournment prevent its return, in which case it shall not be a law.

[MassExodus]

POTUS can veto a bill for any reason he likes. He does not have to explain his reasons, he may do so if he chooses.

Uncle Fud answered your question just fine, me reiterating it isn't going to make it more true.

Look, in all of this, it doesn't matter what I think of the damage Bush is about to do, I'm just one guy.

The problem Bush synchophants are going to have is the same one that James Carville is currently experiencing.

Your blind loyalty will one day render your perspective - irrelevent.

[Howlin]

What is that supposed to prove?

If you can produce for me ANY time a law has not been enacted because of a presidential veto ALONE, then perhaps I might consider the fact that you are serious, rather than trying to force Bush into a corner.

If Bush has the DUTY to do it, then there HAVE to be other laws that have NOT been enacted, right? I mean, they ALL can't be constitutional, can they?

[68-69TonkinGulfYachtClub]

"However, the terrorists have no ability of actually CHANGING our Bill of RIGHTS."

True, however they did prevent over 3000 on 9/11 from ever again exercising their RIGHTS.
Laws can always be protested, changed, over ruled etc.
Citizens murdered by terrorists can never be brought back from the dead.

[NittanyLion]

If you can produce for me ANY time a law has not been enacted because of a presidential veto ALONE, then perhaps I might consider the fact that you are serious, rather than trying to force Bush into a corner.

Michigander did, in Post #45. Of course, Congress has a chance to override, if that's what you're getting at.

[kidd]

Sigh.

Of course the Dems won't elect Miller in the primaries. I asked "what if". I guess my point was that with this approval, I don't think that Bush can take his conservative base for granted anymore.

BTW Miller voeted for Dasshole, because Miller is still a Dumbocrat. He's not a saint by any means. He's just the most conservative democrat in Congress.

[PhiKapMom]

Ole Okie: First to the important news of the weekend -- how about them Sooners?

Second what you must said about the Supreme Court! I have been posting ever chance I get that it is the responsibility of the Supreme Court to determine the constitutionality of the laws written by Congress and signed by the President. There seems to be a basic lack of Civics 101 on this Forum and people cannot seem to fathom that we actually have three branches of Government (sarcasm) all with different responsibilities.

Considering some of the folks I have seen posting all this anti-Bush sentiment it seems that nothing has changed -- sounds like the same old crap from the primaries to me! They must think we are deaf, dumb, and blind not to notice that they were never were Bush supporters or were pseudo Bush supporters.

Funniest thing I saw was last night using the Washington Post to further their cause of Bush bashing! Now that said it all!

[Howlin]

And your blind Bush hatred makes your opinions on things like this just as irrelevant.

Just because we do not agree on this does NOT mean that I am wrong. Nor does it mean that you are wrong. We just look at it from different perspectives.

I don't draw lines in the sand; you do.

[onedoug]

Socialist politics for a free enterprise based society. Sure.

[Howlin]

Congress has a chance to override, if that's what you're getting at.

Will the law be constitutional then?

[ambrose]

Don't forget that President Squish is also demanding that Peru release Lori Berenson.

[Uncle Bill]

"He cannot possibly KNOW it's unconstitutional"

"Bush will sign a bill that he thinks is unconstitutional on the theory that the courts will throw it out, even though his administration will have to argue that they shouldn't throw it out, even though the administration really wants the courts to throw it out."

"When people lose faith in their institutions they trust to enforce the law, justice is no longer possible."
John Ashcroft - Source

"We’re of the people and by the people and for the people. That’s the motto of our campaign"
George W. Bush - Source: Remarks in Eau Claire, Wisconsin Oct 18, 2000

"I’ll put competent judges on the bench, people who will strictly interpret the Constitution and will not use the bench to write social policy. I believe that the judges ought not to take the place of the legislative branch of government, that they’re appointed for life and that they ought to look at the Constitution as sacred. I don’t believe in liberal, activist judges. I believe in strict constructionists. And those are the kind of judges I will appoint."
George W. Bush - Source: Presidential debate, Boston MA Oct 3, 2000

"I’m the only one on the stage who’s appointed judges. And my judges strictly interpret the Constitution. And that’s what I hope all of us would do."
George W. Bush - Source: Republican Debate in Durham, NH Jan 6, 2000

"I believe in freedom of speech"
George W. Bush - Source: GOP debate in Los Angeles Mar 2, 2000.

[Howlin]

I have read that. I am asking you where it says the POTUS ALONE can decide?

Do you not think that there is even the slightest outside chance this bill just may be constitutional according to the USSC?

We all know that if Bush vetoes this bill, the House will override his veto; and we're right back where we are today, with nothing but wasted time to show for it.

[Texbob]

When he signs it, he will lose millions of conservative votes and will become another Bush one termer.

[JustAnAmerican]

"Carl Rove knows that conservatives will be pissed off in the short run, but will vote for Bush nontheless in '04."

I think the California's Republican primary was a good indicator as to how most of us Republican's think. After 245(i) and now CFR this Republican and many more like me will be

(1) Staying home and not voting in the next Presidental election if Bush is the only Republican candidate.

Or

(2) Voting for any third party candidate that runs on a anti-illegal immigration platform.

And if because of this a Democrat gets elected so be it. For a country with a President that sanctions open borders(amnesty to me is the same as having an open border policy), and that views the constitution as a mere piece of paper, is no different then a country with a Democrat in my mind. And since I despise dems so much, without another choice I will not vote. And don't for a minute think I am in the minority, in fact I dare say I am in the Majority.