Posted on 03/27/2002 11:37:28 AM PST by dead
GREENVILLE, S.C. (Reuters) - President Bush (news - web sites) quietly signed what he called a flawed law to reform political fund-raising on Wednesday and then set off on a blitz to raise some $3.5 million for fellow Republicans.
The president signed the law without fanfare in the Oval Office, reflecting his misgivings about the measure which bans unlimited contributions known as "soft money" to national political parties in the largest overhaul of U.S. campaign finance laws in a quarter century.
Bush told reporters the law improved the system despite his misgivings, saying he would have preferred legislation that protected union members and company shareholders from having their funds spent on politics without their consent.
The president also said that he saw no irony is signing the bill and then collecting political cash for Republican U.S. Senate candidates in South Carolina, Georgia and Texas in an aggressive two-day fund-raising swing through the South.
"I'm not going to lay down my arms," Bush said, saying he would abide by the rules of the new law, which does not go into effect until the day after the Nov. 5 election in which he hopes to wrest control of the Senate from the Democrats.
"These Senate races are very important for me. I want the Republicans to take control of the Senate," he bluntly told reporters. "These are the rules and that's why I am going to campaign for like-minded people."
The law, passed after a seven-year struggle in Congress, bans unlimited "soft money" to national political parties. In recent years, the Democratic and Republican national parties have each raked in hundreds of millions of dollars in "soft money."
In addition, the law sharply limits such contributions to state and local political parties, restricts broadcast ads by outside groups shortly before elections and doubles to $2,000 the amount of highly regulated "hard money" contributions to individual congressional and presidential candidates.
"LEGITIMATE LEGAL QUESTIONS"
In a written statement, Bush praised some of the law's provisions, including the "soft money" limits, the hike in individual contribution limit and new disclosure requirements saying they would "go a long way toward fixing some of the most pressing problems in campaign finance today."
But Bush said he would have preferred a bill that included paycheck protection -- a provision to protect union members and company shareholders from "involuntary political activities" undertaken by their leadership.
Several groups have voiced constitutional concerns about the measure, including the American Civil Liberties Union (news - web sites) and U.S. Chamber of Commerce (news - web sites). Opponents immediately challenged the largely Democratic-backed law in court on grounds it would violate constitutional guarantees of freedom of speech.
"The bill does have flaws," the president said, adding that he expected the courts to resolve "legitimate legal questions" about the constitutionality of its broad ban on issue advertising.
"Individuals have a right not to have their money spent in support of candidates or causes with which they disagree ... I hope that in the future Congress and I can work together to remedy this defect of the current financing structure," he said.
UNCLEAR WHO BENEFITS
Both parties remained uncertain who would benefit politically in the pending new world of campaign finance, but supporters contend that the new law will help curb big donors from effectively buying access to the halls of power where they can influence legislation.
Labor unions traditionally support Democratic candidates, particularly in presidential elections, although Bush actively courted their votes in 2000 and is likely to do so again in 2004.
After years of political maneuvering, campaign finance reform gained momentum earlier this year with the collapse of energy giant Enron Corp., which critics say lavished contributions on both Republicans and Democrats to gain access to Capitol Hill and influence policy.
One of its major proponents was Sen. John McCain, the maverick Arizona Republican who made the issue a centerpiece of his losing run against Bush for the Republican presidential nomination in the 2000 White House election.
After the signing, Bush was expected to raise $1 million for Rep. Lindsey Graham who is running for retiring Republican Sen. Strom Thurmond's seat in South Carolina.
Later, the president hoped to bring in some $1.5 million for Republican Rep. Saxby Chambliss of Georgia, campaigning to face Democratic Sen. Max Cleland and more than $1 million for Texas Attorney General John Cornyn's bid for the seat being vacated by retiring Republican Sen. Phil Gramm.
Next time his “handlers” tell the president that certain actions will improve his standing with the press, maybe he’ll have the cajones to actually do the right thing instead.
I'm so mad, I could scream.
Note that it didn't say: Bush told reporters he would have preferred legislation that protected the FIrst Amendment rights of the American people.
Note that it didn't say: Bush told reporters he would have preferred legislation that protected the FIrst Amendment rights of the American people.
Clinton signs liberal legislation and flys off on a major fundraising trip.
That's why I don't know why Bush chose to carry their water and sign CFR.
Did he really think he'd win them over?
Shame on you, Mr. President. Shame on you.
I'd say we had better start early and often educating those who seem to not have a clue of what's going on.
What I liked about this signing, Bush didn't give McCain the fanfare he envisioned while campaigning and getting this bill signed.
I predict a ground swell of conservative support once again diluting the Republican bid for presidency in 2004 just like his daddy!
On call after call on Rush- conservatives relay their disbelief in the Republican strategy that to beat the liberals you have to become one!
No matter how hard and long Rush tries to expalin the "strategy" Bush is using conservatives ain't buying it.
Too bad for G W that Rush can only vote once.
You mean all-knowing, maharushie? I like Rush but I think many of his callers are really not what they say they are. Right now I think he would do well and not squander his time on-air by his tactics on today's show. Pretending to accept the liberal agenda to get more listeners is a questionable idea. Especially if he's telling us that's what he's doing because he's assuming that that is Bush's strategy.
He would do better by continuing to use his time to stick with facts that are evident and what the liberals are cooking up next. The DNC has been very quiet.
I will put him on record though as being brave enough to criticize Bush. Seems these days your nobody until you've B!tched about how bad Bush is.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.