Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

"Bush signs campaign finance law" (An oldie but goodie for you BushBots! Have a nice day!)
various wire reports, via Japan today ^ | March 28, 2002 | AP via Japan Today

Posted on 12/10/2003 4:09:39 PM PST by churchillbuff

JAPAN TODAY March 28, 2002 ATLANTA — U.S. President George Bush 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.

Bush praised the law's ban on the unlimited contributions known as "soft money" to national political parties but he questioned its limits on outside political advertising and its failure to protect union members and company shareholders from having their money spent on politics without their consent.

In a sign of his misgivings about the bill, the broadest overhaul of U.S. campaign finance laws in a quarter century, Bush chose to sign it into law privately in the Oval Office without the fanfare the White House typically arranges for such events.

Sen. Mitch McConnell, a Kentucky Republican and ardent foe of the measure, filed suit moments after the president signed the largely Democratic-basked legislation, arguing that it violates the constitutional right to freedom of speech.

The president said he saw no irony in signing the bill into law 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 told reporters in Greenville, South Carolina. "These are the rules and that's why I am going to campaign for like-minded people."

Bush aims to erase the Democrats' one-seat edge in the Senate, which has stymied much of his domestic agenda.

"I want Lindsey Graham elected," Bush told donors at a Greenville, South Carolina, event expected to bring in about $1 million for the congressman running for retiring Republican Sen. Strom Thurmond's U.S. Senate seat from South Carolina, and for other Republicans. "Frankly it's in my interest that he get elected because I've got a lot I want to do."

Later, Bush hoped to raise $1.5 million for Republicans including Rep. Saxby Chambliss of Georgia, campaigning to face Democratic Sen. Max Cleland, and more than $1 million on Thursday for Texas Attorney General John Cornyn's bid for the seat being vacated by retiring Republican Sen. Phil Gramm.

In a time-honored tradition, the White House scheduled official events at each stop — in this case arranging for the president to meet firemen and police who cope with catastrophes like the Sept 11 attacks — thereby making the federal government pay for the bulk of his travel costs rather than the candidates.

The campaign finance law, passed after a seven-year struggle in Congress, bans unlimited "soft money" to national political parties, which have raked in hundreds of millions of dollars in such cash in recent years.

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.

In a written statement, Bush praised some of the law's provisions, including the "soft money" limits, the increased 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.

"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.

Both parties remain unsure who would benefit politically in the new world of campaign finance, but supporters contend that the law will help curb big donors from effectively buying access to the halls of power where they can sway lawmakers.

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.

The law's most ardent congressional proponent 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 election. They other key advocate in the Senate was Sen. Russell Feingold, a Wisconsin Democrat. (Compiled from wire reports)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Crime/Corruption; Culture/Society; Editorial; Government; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: bush; bushscotuscfr; cfr; cowardice; mccainfeingold; rinoism; unconstitutional
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 81-100101-120121-140 ... 261-262 next last
To: Servant of the 9
Bush, like almost everyone else, was sure the Supremes would throw most of this out.

To think this is how he got the income tax, also.

Bush, Nea and kennedy, steel tariffs, cfr,Patriot act, next one up ASW banned extended.

Screw the pubis and their leader.

101 posted on 12/10/2003 5:33:52 PM PST by dts32041 (Is it time to use the 2nd Amendment to protect the 1st Amendment?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Lazamataz
Aw, Laz,can we talk?Nobody's perfect.
102 posted on 12/10/2003 5:35:01 PM PST by MEG33
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: 45Auto
but who's to say what form US Socialism will take?

I wonder if it would take the following form: a govt school system that seeks to indoctrinate children into socialism; it provides a govt retirement plan "social security"; it provides for the disabled (social security disability), the unemployed (unemployment insurance that keeps getting extended), the single-mothers with children (welfare); it redistributes income (progressive tax system); it provides for a nationalized health insurance system (medicare -now with prescription coverage); it takes away property rights (environmental laws and eminent domaine); it takes away our constitutional rights (campaign finance reform; hate speech codes; religious freedom in our schools; gun control laws); it destroys our families to further promote the dependence on govt (gay marriages, gay adoptions).

103 posted on 12/10/2003 5:36:08 PM PST by Momforgold (Get rid of the Federal Reserve)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 72 | View Replies]

To: churchillbuff; Jim Robinson

Beautiful. Despite how depressed I was today over this I had to laugh when I thought about how the Bushbots were going to justify this.

I'm also curious if Jim Robinson still believes that any Pubbie is better than any Democrat. Jim?

104 posted on 12/10/2003 5:37:47 PM PST by ModernDayCato
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Lazamataz
Choosing not to vote is still voting.
105 posted on 12/10/2003 5:42:49 PM PST by Quicksilver ([Liberals] aren't liberal at all when it comes to freedom; they want control over everything. --Rush)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: ModernDayCato
Yes.
106 posted on 12/10/2003 5:43:28 PM PST by Jim Robinson (All your ZOT are belong to us.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 104 | View Replies]

To: RJCogburn
Are you really saying that you would vote Dean, Kerry, Clark, etc, etc (pick one) over GWB?

Yes he has made mistakes, even big ones, but voting for one of the above is REALLY scary!

Say it isn't so!
107 posted on 12/10/2003 5:43:57 PM PST by JSloth
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 88 | View Replies]

To: ModernDayCato
I know exactly what kind of judges the Democrats will install. I prefer to take my chances with Bush and the Republicans. I also know that Dean or any of the other Democrat candidates would be a disaster for America. No thanks, I'll stand by Bush even if I hate some of his decisions.
108 posted on 12/10/2003 5:45:55 PM PST by Jim Robinson (All your ZOT are belong to us.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 104 | View Replies]

To: Jim Robinson
Well said. I agree.
109 posted on 12/10/2003 5:49:56 PM PST by knak (wasknaknowknid)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 108 | View Replies]

To: Jim Robinson
I hope this is a dumb question: could the CFR legislation somehow effect FR?

5.56mm

110 posted on 12/10/2003 5:50:36 PM PST by M Kehoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 108 | View Replies]

To: M Kehoe
No
111 posted on 12/10/2003 5:51:55 PM PST by MEG33
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 110 | View Replies]

To: Digger
So what you are saying is we need a pres that is not a leader but a politician to satisfy the Canadian man on ABC?

No I am responding to the post that said Bubba wouldn't have done anything
Sorry you don't see that
112 posted on 12/10/2003 5:53:04 PM PST by uncbob
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies]

To: M Kehoe
Well, I doubt it. Don't think it applies to the Internet. But if they do try to shutdown non-commerical political discussion sites on the Internet, I think that one or more of us could get another hearing before the Supreme Court. And who knows? Maybe better luck next time. And a double who knows? Maybe sometime in the next couple years there will be one or more vacancies on the Supreme Court and perhaps we'll end up with a more conservative court.

113 posted on 12/10/2003 5:59:16 PM PST by Jim Robinson (All your ZOT are belong to us.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 110 | View Replies]

To: churchillbuff
you're fine with him taking away your freedom.

No. I'm just able to look at the big picture a little more realistically than you.

114 posted on 12/10/2003 5:59:29 PM PST by Paul Atreides (Is it really so difficult to post the entire article?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: Paul Atreides
"You may want to suffer under socialism for a few years, but I don't. I'm not cutting off the entire foot, just because I have a stubbed toe."

Common Sense BUMP!
115 posted on 12/10/2003 6:00:18 PM PST by avenir ("That really was...a Hattori Hanzo...katana.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Digger
I really wish there was something in the Constitution ,from the first, prohibiting close familial succession. We had too many Roosevelts,too many Kennedys, and too many Bushes in high office. The idea of citizens holding office briefly then returning to private life has been hijacked by career politicians and avaricious dynasties. Perhaps part of clinton's appeal was that he wasn't related to all the other political figures.
116 posted on 12/10/2003 6:03:20 PM PST by hoosierham
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: Dr. Frank
My gaffe. Meant Harold. Got Howard on my mind, as the red-haired stranger would say.
See
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/scandal/interviews/ickes.html
117 posted on 12/10/2003 6:06:02 PM PST by bvw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: M Kehoe
Actually, it just may affect FR and other political sites. This might have the unintended consequence of making the Internet just that much more important to activism. If activists/issue advocates, etc, cannot advertise in the more traditional venues, how are they going to get their message out? Internet activism could boom. And so far, the right just about owns the Internet.
118 posted on 12/10/2003 6:06:23 PM PST by Jim Robinson (All your ZOT are belong to us.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 110 | View Replies]

To: bvw
I know who Harold Ickes is.

Still don't know what your point is, if you have one.

119 posted on 12/10/2003 6:07:17 PM PST by Dr. Frank fan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 117 | View Replies]

To: MEG33
No

OK. Is there a follow-up post? Like why you came to your conclusion.

There is a history at FR of activism. Some of the activism that occurs is on the radio or in newspapers. Some takes the form of banners in the sky, or signs, or annoucements using media. Some urls on FR lead to politcal parties. We donate to this site to keep it viable.

Have you (or) I considered all the ways to protect FR from enemies (oh, and we have quite a few). Many who have attempted to close this board.

Maybe I shouldn't have asked the question.

5.56mm

120 posted on 12/10/2003 6:09:52 PM PST by M Kehoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 111 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 81-100101-120121-140 ... 261-262 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson