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)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Since I agree with most of what he's done, there's no conflict with voting my conscience and voting for Bush. People who will vote against Bush based on "voting my conscience" if he does one thing they disagree with are strange. There's a bunch of strange people on Free Republic.
Fair enough, but the greatest expansion of government since LBJ is a turn-off for me. Can't vote for it.
| Bush, like almost everyone else, was sure the Supremes would throw most of this out. He thought it was a harmless 'feel good' bill, like pardoning the Whitehouse Turkey at Thanksgiving. He was wrong. I was wrong. The ACLU was wrong. The Media was wrong. Everyone will have found ways to circumvent this crap by spring. It is an affront to our rights, but meaningless in effect.
|
At what cost? Surly there is some cost, some point at which the better chance of the conservative justice would not be worth the cost.
The largest expansion of government since LBJ (yes, broken record time) is too high a cost for me.
Thanks.
Well, at least you got that part right. Now, how about rebuting my assertion that you are parroting liberal talking points/lies?
There is nothing but fantasy to support this notion that he thought the bill would be dismantled by the courts.
Bush is a compassionate conservative, not a principled conservative.
Hopefully it cuts him off at the knees.....any help anybody?
I won't be voting for Dean. His cost is unknown to me, but arguably, based upon past experience with a significant Republican Congress, even when not a majority, government expanded at a lesser rate.
I take no pleasure in not voting for GWB, but he is a disappointment to me of enormous proportion and cannot bring myself to vote for him again. (Disclaimer...if Hillary runs, I run to vote for the Repub)(Explanation of the disclaimer....no matter how horrid a dem could be, I just cannot imagine any being as corrupt, as criminal, as the Clintons.)
I don't agree with him, but I don't think he is a troll.
Jim, these guys don't care. Hell, supposed conservatives are parroting liberal lies like the post at response number 74 to this thread. I've never heard a conservative blame Bush for 9/11, the Clinton recession, the Israel/Palestine problem, and North Korea getting nukes. But I have heard lots of lying liberals say those things. What kind of conservative could spout crap like that?
Maybe as a certainty you are correct. But surely you can take a guess. Consider what a Dean foreign policy look like? Or a Dean administration economic policy look like? What would a Dean defense policy look like?
A very good guess would be that the "cost" in lives and treasure would be enormous.
5.56mm
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.