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)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
We have a simple disagreement here.
It would have taken real courage to veto this monstrous campaign finance bill - - but he didn't have it in him.
Evidently not.
Like I already said, even at the time, I disagreed with his choice to sign that bill. I've no desire to repeat myself any more than I already have about this.
Anything else?
What this comes down to is those that think government works better "gridlocked" ie. with a Pubbie congress and a Dem president
vs.
Those who will tolerate more spending from a total Pub gov't so a Dem president will not destroy us defensively.
I find the threat of a budget deficit less scary than a leftist leading us on the world stage right now.
However, I don't agree. I see a political calculation which was a mistake.
Let's look at the core problems here-- and there are three:
1) The Congress
2) The President
3) The Supreme Court.
All three contributed to this god-awful bit of legislation, but the one that failed us the most is the Supremes.
How do we get the Supreme Court fixed? That is the last line of defense, after all.
So Bush signed a bit of legislation, hoping that it would help him change the legislature by getting rid of Democrats and hoping it would keep him in office so he could change the court. I believe it was a political calculation, because in other areas (from Kyoto to the ICC to declaring his administration's position that the 2nd amendment is a personal, not a group, right) he has been good. He has nominated good judges. In all of these areas, Clinton was the opposite. For each man, the pattern of their decisions weighs on how I respond.
If Clinton had signed it, it would be just another brick in the wall. For Bush, it has been a very bad, very wrong exception to the general trend.
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?
You're assuming that once we get to full-blown socialism, that the vote will have any meaning; I'm not too sure what meaning it has today. Certainly, we voted out Davis in the Cal recall, but who's to say what form US Socialism will take? Maybe the former Soviet Union would be a good historical marker, or maybe Zimbabwe - socialism is a disease and it does not lend itself to easy removal once installed. "No tyrant has ever given up power voluntarily." That goes for singular dictators and dictatorial oligarchs.
Lack of courage? maybe. But it fits into his MO of ignoring things. He ignored Israel-Palestine and it got worse. He ignored the Muslims and we got 9/11. He ignored the economy and we got a crash. He ignored American workers and we got 3,000,000 missing jobs. He ignored NK and we got a crises. He ignored the world and now can't find a friend to help. He ignored what Congress is doing and we got CFR plus bigger government, bigger debt and never vetoed a spending bill.
Did I dream the worldwide years-long uproar over whether or not to topple a dictator that "everyone hated?"
Holy revisionist history, Batman!
Having said that, I am in full agreement with the comments Rush made this morning about the folly of CFR, although he seemed to take pains not to blame Bush for signing it into law as much as the GOP in general for passing it -- and John McCain specifically.
Holy cow...did Bush's overspending transform you into Dick Gephardt overnight?
There's probably only one way to do that - a very unpleasent way, I'm afraid.
Sorry, but very few here think Bush walks on water. I love the man, and I will vote for him again. And as a self-professed Bushbot, I am extremely pissed about all the CFR stuff (check my posting history if you don't believe me). You'll find many of the Bushbots are not happy with today's ruling. Those of us who gave Bush a pass because we were 100% sure the SCOTUS would strike the law down have been snookered. Personally, I placed faith in the wrong group of people. I will NEVER expect the SCOTUS to uphold the Constitution- but I will expect my President to do so. There will be no more passes.
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.