Main provisions of the campaign finance bill:

USA Today ^ | 3/20/02

[GhostofWCooper]

Tells the Supreme Court it should judge each provision individually, and not view any legislation on an all-or-nothing basis.

So, the oath breakers admit the misdeed right in the legislation, then try to limit the powers of the Judiciary... LOL!

Bans solicitation of campaign contributions on federal property, including the White House and the Capitol complex.

This was already illegal, and Algor already used his office for fund-raising, without any legal consequences.
Does this constitute a 'controlling legal authority'?
It must only apply to conservative campaigns.

[TheHound]

Unions, corporations and some independent groups would be banned from broadcasting certain types of political advertising within 60 days of an election or 30 days of a primary. These commercials are generally known as "issue ads," because they refrain from advocating election or defeat of specific candidates yet refer directly to them and can attack or defend them.

If this wasn't so obviously unconstitutional, I would almost like the bill, except for the part about telling the Judiciary how to do their job,because the republicans could cream the rats with it. But the first amendment comes first and this piece of sh*t must be vetoed.

[RJayneJ]

I was wondering about the provision of 'all or nothing.' When Senator Byrd challenged the Line Item Veto, his argument was that it usurped congresses power and therefore was unconstitutional. And he won. When I read this earlier I was thinking that the 30 & 60 day prohibition on soft money ads may not be the only provision that may prove unconstitutional. The 'all or nothing' clause may be a bit sticky as well.

The 'War Powers Act' is another interesting piece of legislation that all presidents, since Viet Nam, at one time or another has claimed that it is unconstitutional, but won't challenge it openly for fear that they might lose some of their power especially when it comes time to declare war.

[GhostofWCooper]

The thing stinks, it's all unConstitutional, IMHO.
We are reminded that people that value Constitutional principles are would-be terrorists in the eyes of the fbi now. Their own attitude betrays them as treasonous.

I worry about the quality of life our grandchildren will have to endure.

[BluesDuke]

I keep listening to people actually making the argument that, well, so what if this thing is unconstitutional, because at least Congress and the President can claim themselves on the side of the campaign reform angels (assuming Mr. Bush is fool enough to sign this abomination) while the Supreme Court does the dirty work of blowing it out of the water.

Oh. So now the justification for writing and signing unconstitutional legislation is gamesmanship, eh? Who wants to guess how long it would have taken for us presumed on the side of right reason to scream bloody murder if a certain droopy-drawered former President - you know, the one who couldn't keep it in his pants, among other things - and his party in power enough in Congress had tried the same stunt.

And I have even heard people say that it isn't Congress's or the President's proper business to know what is or isn't Constitutional before they write or sign it. How's that again?

Forget about a government worthy of the Founding Fathers. We don't even have a government worthy of Barry Goldwater - who said his priorities included, I will not attempt to determine whether legislation is "needed" before I have first determined whether it is Constitutionally permissible. Underline that phrase, gang: constitutionally permissible. As in, Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press... What part of shall make no law did this Congress, does this President, not understand, when this legislation was written and passed, and while it still awaits the President's signature - which signature one who loves this Republic (what's left of it) and the Constitution under which it is presumed to live should pray is never scrawled on the proverbial dotted line?

It is very much the business - indeed, it is the duty, the mandate - of Congress and the President to know goddamn well whether the legislation they are writing or signing is Constitutional, to the best of their available determination and faculty, before they write, pass, sign, and thus enact it. For how many years did we of the right argue strenuously, and campaign arduously, on grounds that included those demanding of prospective legislators and executives that they, in Mr. Goldwater's turn of phrase, determine no legislation's need before first determining any legislation's Constitutional permit.

If we have come at last to that point where legislation can be written, passed, signed, and enacted with those who make it knowing it is unconstitutional legislation, then this Republic - what's left of it - has been had. Beaucoup big time. If we have come at last to that point where gamesmanship supercedes leadership, then this Republic has been had.