"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

[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)

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

[Doohickey]

I think it would make a better statement to stand behind a third party candidate rather than skipping the Presidential line on the ballot.

How about we find a third party candidate that embraces sound conservative principles so we can show the Republican party how many votes they've alientated?

[Maurice Tift]

restricts broadcast ads by outside groups shortly before elections

Outside? Well at least it doesn't affect inside groups. Whew!

I wonder if those outside groups will consider this a law abridging the freedom of speech. Outsiders... always such troublemakers...

[churchillbuff]

bump

[churchillbuff]

bump

[Momforgold]

We need to reverse all of this, not go with the flow. Period.

We can both agree against going with the flow...that I refuse to do. But reverse it? I feel a bit pessimistic about it, especially since it has been the Republicans that have been pushing through what they had been elected to fight against.

[dts32041]

You forgot this line.

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

you forgot this line.

"Bush, like almost everyone else, was sure the Supremes would throw most of this out."

As a student of Teddy the internationalist Roosevelt, he should have been aware of how an income tax was imposed on an unwilling country.

So bush the younger has tighten the rules of speech tighter than any imagine by the elder.

[jagrmeister]

I agree with the campaign finance reform bill. There are cases when a society must decide amongst its values and we decided that in this case limits on free speech were an acceptable cost to having elections that were driven by the people. I think the law has to go further than the 60 day ban on special interests running ads- and be pushed to 120 days out, personally. No, Bush didn't screw up. Rather, the rigid conservative ideology that everyone must swear to and is repeated ad nauseum was in this case flawed. As usual, President Bush got it right. And as is not unusual, the partisan mob got it wrong.

[lasereye]

This is one of the few times in history that the the Republicans have held the White House and both houses of congress. If we can hang on to the presidency and the senate for another term or two, we will at least have an opportunity to replace some of these judges.

Since Bush's court nominees have been solidly conservative, it's very likely that if Bush had been able to appoint even one SC Justice to replace one of the liberals, the decision would have gone the other way. So you've got these "conservatives" saying they don't want him to have another term because they're outraged by the CFR law, thereby guaranteeing the law will be with us indefinitely if Bush loses. They've either got a screw loose, or they're just pretending to be conservatives (or both).

[Kuksool]

Campaign Finance Reform is largely a non-issue among swing voters. You ask a random person on the street about MCain-Feingold, the chances are he/she wouldn't know what it is. The law is only of a concern to activists of special interest groups.

[churchillbuff]

bump

[churchillbuff]

He thought it was a harmless 'feel good' bill, like pardoning the Whitehouse Turkey at Thanksgiving.

Then he's as dense as his opponents say, and he earned that C average in college

[churchillbuff]

Ruling Hurts Citizens (from USA Today oped page)
By John Samples
Wednesday was a sad day for American democracy and a shameful moment for the nation's highest court. The McCain-Feingold campaign finance law, upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court, banned what is known as "soft money" and restricted political advertising. Congressional sponsors of the measure said the law would prevent corruption and improve our elections. In fact, the law sought to blunt criticism of incumbents.
From 1995 onward, many groups from the right and the left attacked congressional incumbents in ads paid for by soft money. Not surprisingly, members of Congress — the targets of such advertising — wanted to stop or impede that criticism.

Because the First Amendment prevented Congress from banning the ads outright, McCain-Feingold was the next best solution for incumbents: It banned soft-money funding for ads that mentioned a candidate during the last few weeks before an election. As Sen. John McCain himself told his colleagues, "If you cut off the soft money, you are going to see a lot less of (attack ads)."

Ads criticizing incumbents are bad for Congress but good for America. They inform voters and increase turnout. The court has sided with Congress rather than the people on this point, thereby failing to live up to its constitutional responsibility to protect the rights of citizens from governmental abuse.

Beyond the specifics of McCain-Feingold, the court has granted Congress more power over political speech. In the past, Congress was allowed only to regulate money in politics to prevent corruption. Now the court says Congress can limit political fundraising to prevent "undue influence" by some Americans. Because no one knows how much influence is "undue," the court has given Congress a blank check to restrict funding for political activity.

Before this decision, Congress only could regulate the financing of ads that expressly advocated the election or defeat of a candidate. Now Congress has a green light to regulate the funding of any and all ads on political issues during an election.

The court's decision confirms Thomas Jefferson's view that "the natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground." The court gave Congress more power and job security. The rest of us have less political liberty and a less-accountable government.

John Samples is director of the Cato Institute Center for Representative Government

[churchillbuff]

It is an affront to our rights, but meaningless in effect.

Sure, a law that bans paying for criticism of politicians before an election is "meaningless." You would have loved the USSR or Nazi Germany. Bush must be happy he has so many blind sheep loyalists like yourself. He can screw you and you ask for more.

[churchillbuff]

It is an affront to our rights, but meaningless in effect.

Sure, a law that bans paying for criticism of politicians before an election is "meaningless." You would have loved the USSR or Nazi Germany. Bush must be happy he has so many blind sheep loyalists like yourself. He can screw you and you ask for more.

[churchillbuff]

It is an affront to our rights, but meaningless in effect.

Sure, a law that bans paying for criticism of politicians before an election is "meaningless." You would have loved the USSR or Nazi Germany. Bush must be happy he has so many blind sheep loyalists like yourself. He can screw you and you ask for more.

[churchillbuff]

If nothing else, I'd be happy if conservatives understand that an endorsement of liberal policy is generally just that, as opposed to "strategery".

I'd be happy if we had a president with more intelligence, more courage, and more conviction

[At _War_With_Liberals]

What happened to checks and balances?

[Dane]

I will not be voting the Presidential line this coming election.

Bush might as well sign the Assault Weapons ban. He cannot lose my vote twice.

This decision is permanent and irrevokable.

Did you have your cigarette(akin to an after coitus cigarette) after you wrote this.

[At _War_With_Liberals]

Isn't this the definition of govt tyranny?

[Let's Roll]

I doubt if you are sorry at all - and at the time I couldn't believe he signed that thing thinking the increasingly liberal SCOTUS would save him from political fallout. The First Amendment is too precious to screw with.

As many will point out - I guess we will just have to vote for an imperfect Bush instead of Dean or one of the other dwarfs. If Dean were to get in office or Shrillary - FR wouldn't exist anymore.