Posted on 03/21/2002 2:05:52 PM PST by DaveCooper
On signing the campaign-finance-reform bill.
So, President Bush thinks the campaign-finance-reform bill he’s going to sign “does present some legitimate constitutional questions.”
But he seems remarkably incurious about what the answers to those questions might be — as if it’s a minor matter to be worried about by someone else, once he’s gotten The New York Times and John McCain out of his hair.
As far as we know, Bush hasn’t asked the Justice Department about it or his own White House Counsel. This represents more than a politician trying to dodge a fight he finds politically inconvenient, but a deeper malady in our political culture: the idea that the Constitution is something for judges, and judges alone, to interpret (and shape, mold, and generally mangle).
Ramesh Ponnuru persuasively analyzed this tendency in the last NR. It is a trend that, at bottom, is inimical to self-government.
What made John McCain’s primary campaign so exciting at the beginning — and there was magic in those New Hampshire meeting rooms — was its call to service, its defense of self-government as a worthy, even heroic, enterprise.
And, here, now that we have reached what in some sense is the fruition of McCain’s primary crusade, we have the highest elected official in the land simply punting to the courts on important constitutional questions directly bearing on the ability of political parties and individuals to participate in our elections.
This is distressing, but is also galling. The Bush administration is ever vigilant in protecting its own prerogatives, whether it’s the privacy of Cheney’s energy task-force meetings or Tom Ridge’s right not testify before Congress.
The administration is willing to get roundly beaten up, even by Hill Republicans, in defense of these positions. But when it comes to the privileges and prerogatives of ordinary people — well, those are “constitutional questions” in which the administration has considerably less interest.
When John McCain isn’t smearing politics, and instead celebrates it as a noble enterprise, he’s on to something. It often has ennobling moments.
But President Bush affixing his signature to a bill he’s thinks may be unconstitutional won’t be one of them.
Perhaps Bush asked the 5 Republican supreme court justices what they think.
If I were Bush that is who I would ask, and if the answer was good, I wouldn't get very upset about it at all.
It may surprise you to learn that the DOJ and the Attorney General can't do anything about CFR. Those 5 Supremes are another matter.
This bill makes it a very tough world on Democrats. If they talked to the nuts and bolts people in the Democratic party instead of Katie Couric they would know how much this Bill hurts Democrats.
Twenty five years ago when Democrats limited hard money to $1,000 a doner they were sure that it would destory Republican fund raising. But it didn't. The Republicans way out raised them. Democrats had to invent the soft money loophole to get around their own law.
They will find a new loophole here. Lawyers write the laws. Lawyers get paid for finding loopholes. That is why they always leave loopholes.
To tell you the truth, if we can kill it permanently, it beats having to fight year after year after year, because a veto would leave us dealing potentially with President Hillary signing the bill, then having someone left-wing hacks as Solicitor General and Attorney General.
What good is it if we walk right into ambushes the way Gingrich did? Sometimes, the key to winning is to withdraw, and conserve the capital for a more important battle, or to possibly win PERMANENTLY.
Remember Brer Rabbit and the tar baby? The more he fought, the more he got trapped. They just threw this into a brier patch, and frankly, all that will survive are the disclosure elements and the higher hard money limits.
The rest is toast. Now, if you have a choice between a 99% chance of killing this thing PERMANENTLY, or fighting this battle year in and year out, what would you take?
I don't like fighting the same battle over and over. Let's stake this abomination PERMANENTLY.
Do you think the entire bill is DOA? I'm not sure that is the case as I think only parts will be found to be unconstitutional if any and the remaining sections will stand. Isn't that the way it will be judge? From another article.....
McConnell and his team said they would focus on a provision that bars the use of soft money 30 days before a primary or 60 days before a general election for "issue ads" that refer directly to a candidate.
I'm not a lawyer, but Buckley v. Valeo only allowed limits, not bans.
And politicians get paid by selling loopholes.
He can veto it because the pattern of the print reminds him of a particular plot of grass that he doesn't like.
And politicians get paid by selling loopholes. Not all lawyers are politicians, but almost all politicians are lawyers. And lawyers that are not politicians contribute huge amounts of money to those that are.
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.