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)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NO, HE DUCKED HIS RESPONSIBILITY AS PRESIDENT TO DEFEND THE CONSTITUTION. IF HE DOESN'T HAVE THE COURAGE TO DO THAT, WHY DOESN'T HE QUIT AND GO BACK TO TEXAS (OR CONNECTICUT OR MAINE, WHEREVER)
...and get social Darwinism free!
So the doctor does your by-pass & you owe him your life?
Overall he's done a great job, but that was a very bad mistake.
I don't know and you don't know - - - although Clinton sent troops a lot of places. What we DO know is that they would have signed the tyrannical campaign finance bill, with its ban on ads against incumbent officeholders - - - A LAW THAT SOUNDS LIKE SADDAM WROTE IT!! Bush acted just like Clinton, Bubba or Jimmy -- and signed this monstrosity. I guess if a guy has an R after his name - - and will drop bombs on Bagdad - - you're fine with him taking away your freedom.
A "mistake" is when you get a math problem wrong. This wasn't a mistake - - it was cynical betrayal and a sign that the man lacks conviction when it comes to freedom and small government. If it had been Clinton, you wouldn't let him get off with the wrist slap of calling it "a mistake."
I don't know what a "conservative leader" means exactly. He is the President and (for better or worse) being President makes him effectively the head of the Republican party, which is (usually) the more conservative of the two major parties. Beyond that I don't even know what your point is; you're arguing against something I never said, I think.
All I said was that Bush isn't perfect, doesn't walk on water, etc., and that nobody thinks he does.
And don't tell me how he's fighting Saddam - - - it doesn't take any courage to fight against somebody who everyone hates
I wasn't going to bring up Saddam in the first place because I didn't think it was germane to a discussion of his "courage". But now I see you mean "political courage".
For the record, it did take a serious amount of political courage (for better or worse) to take out Saddam. Bush expended a great deal of political capital in doing so and it could mean the difference between whether he's a one-termer or two-termer. We'll see.
To imply that it took no political courage to take out Saddam just because "everyone hated him" is nonsense. Everyone may profess to "hate" Saddam but that doesn't mean everyone was in favor of an invasion to oust the sucker; on the contrary it was protested and debated and whined about, and continues to be to this day. To try to deny this is just asinine.
And the polls say (78%) that we want the borders secured, we want a balanced budget, we want a conservative agenda.... So much for that.
I can understand that, since we haven't had one in the White House since Reagan left.
Was that your entire point?
I liked Reagan too.
Are we done now?
No, it was a very popular war - - as the Dixie Chicks found out when they spoke up against it and caught holy h---. Didn't take courage for Bush to bomb a skunk like Saddam. It would have taken real courage to veto this monstrous campaign finance bill - - but he didn't have it in him.
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.