Bush signs campaign finance bill

MSNBC ^ | March 27, 2002 | Reuters

[Redcloak]

Bush signs campaign finance bill

But president says Shays-Meehan is ‘far from perfect’

WASHINGTON, March 27 — President Bush Wednesday signed into law a bill reducing the influence of money in U.S. politics, calling the legislation flawed but saying that on balance it improved the campaign finance system.

	The bill conflicts with several of the principles for reform that Bush set forth last year.		“THE PRESIDENT signed campaign finance reform in the Oval Office this morning,” White House spokesman Ari Fleischer told reporters. “On balance the president believes it improves the system but it’s a far from perfect bill.”        Opponents have promised to quickly challenge the law in federal court.         CONFLICT WITH BUSH PRINCIPLES        The bill conflicts with several of the principles for reform that Bush set forth last year: For example, it doesn’t include a provision that would have required labor unions to obtain authorization from each member before spending dues money on political campaigns.        Republicans and Democrats alike believe they can find ways to cope with the new regulations and continue to raise large sums of money for candidates.        But there will be great uncertainty for months as both sides wait for the courts to uphold or strike down portions of the bill.        At first blush, the bill appears to give Republicans an advantage because it doubles the “hard money” limits on donations to specific House and Senate candidates from $1,000 to $2,000 — and the Republicans have a bigger pool of hard money donors.        In the 2000 election, the GOP raised $447.4 million in hard money, 65 percent more that the Democrats raised.
	‘This is a modest step, a first step, an essential step. But it doesn’t even begin in some ways to address the fundamental problems that still exist....’ — SEN. RUSS FEINGOLD Wisconsin Democrat		In the 60-to-40 Senate vote March 20, eleven Republican senators joined 48 Democrats and independent Jim Jeffords of Vermont in voting for the bill.        Two Democrats — John Breaux of Louisiana and Ben Nelson of Nebraska — joined 38 Republicans in voting against the bill.        Heartened by their success, supporters of the Shays-Meehan bill said it was merely a first step and that they would seek further limits on campaign spending.        The bill would ban “soft money” contributions to national political party committees, but permit such contributions, up to $10,000 per donor per year, to go to any state, county, or local party.        Soft money refers to the unlimited contributions that individuals, corporations and labor unions can make to political parties.
			This money is ostensibly for get-out-the-vote campaigns and other generic party-building efforts, but is often used to help specific candidates.        The bill would not take effect until the day after this November’s elections, so the parties will be able to raise as much soft money as they want for the next eight months.        The measure would also make it illegal for labor unions, corporations or advocacy groups such as Planned Parenthood or the National Right to Life Committee to broadcast so-called “sham issue ads” during a 30-day “blackout” period prior to a primary election or a 60-day period prior to a general election.        Such ads discuss an issue such as clean air, but also mention a candidate. Instead of saying “defeat Sen. Jim Kelly,” the ads use phrases such as “Call Sen. Kelly and ask him why he voted to weaken the Clean Air Act.”         FURTHER LEGISLATION NEEDED        In the final round of floor debate, Sen. Barbara Boxer, D- Calif., said the bill would limit the “obscene” amount of money being spent on campaigns.        “After all these many years, we’re moving to get control of a system that is out of control,” she said.        Referring to radio and TV advertisements that air during the closing weeks of a campaign, Boxer said, that once the bill becomes law, “Those vicious attacks that have come from large soft-money contributions will not be able to come 60 days before your election. That is a big, big plus.”        She added that she would seek additional legislation to force TV station owners to offer discounted advertising rates to candidates and to impose limits on how much money candidates and their supporters can spent on campaigns.        Feingold said he agreed with Boxer that further legislation was needed.        He called Shays-Meehan “a modest step, a first step, an essential step. But it doesn’t even begin in some ways to address the fundamental problems that still exist with the hard money aspects of the system and I pledge to work with you and everybody else to continue the efforts and accomplish more.”
			A chief opponent of the bill, Sen. Phil Gramm, R-Texas, called it “as blatantly unconstitutional as any bill that has ever been written, any bill that has ever been approved by Congress.”        He said the framers of the Constitution would be “absolutely astounded” that Congress would try to restrict First Amendment rights to political advocacy in the way the bill does.        “I am hopeful to God that the Supreme Court will use the flaming letter of the Constitution to strike down this bill,” Gramm said.         COURT BATTLES AHEAD        One of the plaintiffs is expected to be the American Civil Liberties Union, which began running a series of radio spots Monday that would be outlawed if the Shays-Meehan bill becomes law.
	‘Campaign finance legislation will effectively gag political speech.’ — LAURA MURPHY American Civil Liberties Union		Airing in the Chicago media market, the ACLU advertisements urged Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert, who represents a suburban Chicago district, to bring the Employment Non-Discrimination Act to a vote in the House.        That bill would ban hiring, firing or promoting people based on their sexual preferences or behavior.        “Not only have we highlighted the urgency of making employment non-discrimination a top priority in Congress, but the ads also demonstrate in practice how campaign finance legislation will effectively gag political speech,” said Laura Murphy, director of the ACLU’s Washington office.        The ACLU’s ad, Murphy argued, is an example of the political speech that would be silenced by the Shays-Meehan bill.        Because they are being broadcast during a 30-day window before a primary election, the radio ads would be forbidden by the Shays-Meehan bill.        “Ironically, our radio ads would be outlawed by the bill,” Murphy said, “but our virtually identical newspaper ads that are running on Monday would continue to be acceptable.”
			MSNBC.com’s Tom Curry contributed to this report.

[Redcloak]

I hope that GWB just didn't p**s his presidency away.

"Read my lips."

[Redcloak]

[Darth Reagan]

Damn.

[rellimpank]

" a modest step, a first step"--exactly the same language the anti-gun people use every time they make a move toward confiscation--

[RayBob]

To quote our President, "I am disappointed." Bad move, W; bad move.

[deport]

I hope that GWB just didn't p**s his presidency away.

Would you want to deny him that right?

[Rubber Ducky]

Expecting the Supreme Court to take on the responsibility which the legislative and now the executive branch have evaded is a dangeous game of "chicken." And a chicken, when cornered, has the sense to fight.

[Outraged]

Here we go again, handing the knife to democRATS, as the republican leaders turn our backs and offer a clear death blow. Sorta akin to Ceasar saying to Brutus, "Here ya go Brutus, a freshly sharpened knife, use my back as your sheath".

[rintense]

Looks to me like the reporter has been reading Free Republic.

[TLBSHOW]

One thing that hasn't changed is the democrats. Have you heard what they have tried to do? It is un-heard of in American history.

[DoughtyOne]

Well, he's well on his way.

[Corporate Law]

I thought I would never say this: Go ACLU Go! (and not have it mean please go out of existence).

[gaspar]

The son has the same scruples as the father.

[lds23]

Time to un-elect those congresspersons who forced this untenable position on GWB. Politically, I don't see how he could have vetoed it - McCain & the Dems would have had a field day. Wish he could have "line-item vetoed" the anti-free-speech parts of the bill.

[Maceman]

I am so tired of Republicans who don't know what they believe or why they believe it.

[RedWing9]

Hey there, another one to be indexed...

[TomGuy]

Seems our Congress, and now, Presidents, lack an understanding of what is Constitutional. Remember when the Congress passed the Telecommunications Bill a few years ago--knowing full well parts of it would be struck down by the Supreme Court. Now, again with CFR, the "flaws" are left to the Supreme Court. And we wonder why the Courts have taken on the duty of making laws. Congress seems too inept to do so. Trouble is, most of the Courts are liberal, and we suffer.

[steve50]

make that "lack of" and I agree.

[TLBSHOW]

Bush smacked McCain and this law right across the face.

Hey John Boy, no rose garden for you and this UN-AMEICAN law. When it is all done and said you are finished McCain.

[irishfest]

For President Bush to willingly curtail the right of FREE SPEECH is so disappointing that I cannot express in words my disgust. He was going to be a different kind of President.....one with the backbone to do right. Maybe he is no more than just another political hack. This one goes to the core.