Scratch off technically. It was correct.
The 68-32 vote against the filibuster indicates the support for the bill. 8 Senators voted against the bill, despite the fact they actually supported it, for personal political reasons. This is a fairly common practice in the Senate where votes are cast for political reasons when the Senator knows their vote will not actually be needed to pass the bill. So the actual support for the bill was 68 Senators not 60 who actually cast the vote. But I know, don't bother the Bush Haters with the factual reality of how DC politics work. Their world is far too black and white to grasp factual context.
You can rationalize it all you want, but if Bush had vetoed the bill, the votes [two-thirds of the House and Senate] were not there to override it. The 68-32 vote was to permit a vote on the bill, i.e., to invoke cloture. It was not a measure on support for the real bill, which won approval in the Senate 60-40. The 40 Nay votes included two Dems, Nelson and Breaux.
You seem to believe that among the 38 Reps, there were at least 5 Reps [plus the two Dems] who would have voted to override the veto. Why wouldn't they worry about the political consequences of voting to override a Presidential veto and yet, believe it was in their political interest to be recorded as being against it in the up or down vote on the bill? Logically, that makes no sense.
The House voted 240-189 for the bill on 14 February 2002, a day after the White House Press Secretary -- Ari Fleischer had indicated the President would sign (i.e. not veto) a bill "that improves the current situation".
There were not enough votes in the House to override a Presidential veto either. The buck stops in the WH. Bush signed the bill despite his constitutional reservations. This is what he said,
"However, the bill does have flaws. Certain provisions present serious constitutional concerns. In particular, H.R. 2356 goes farther than I originally proposed by preventing all individuals, not just unions and corporations, from making donations to political parties in connection with Federal elections."
"I believe individual freedom to participate in elections should be expanded, not diminished; and when individual freedoms are restricted, questions arise under the First Amendment."
"I also have reservations about the constitutionality of the broad ban on issue advertising, which restrains the speech of a wide variety of groups on issues of public import in the months closest to an election. I expect that the courts will resolve these legitimate legal questions as appropriate under the law."
"As a policy matter, I would have preferred a bill that included a provision to protect union members and shareholders from involuntary political activities undertaken by their leadership."
President Signs Campaign Finance Reform Act Statement by the President
You are defending the indefensible. Bush could have vetoed the bill and the proponents did not have the votes to override it. Bush took the political expediency route and we are now stuck with a law that limits political speech.