Posted on 03/25/2002 11:16:37 AM PST by Pay now bill Clinton
Bush Will Sign Campaign Finance Bill
Mon Mar 25,10:19 AM ET
SAN SALVADOR, El Salvador (Reuters) - President Bush (news - web sites) said on Sunday he would sign landmark campaign finance reform legislation with only a slight hesitation, reflecting his ongoing concerns about the measure.
The legislation to reduce the influence of money in politics won final congressional approval last week, and Bush has pledged to sign it soon.
The bill would ban unlimited contributions known as "soft money" to national political parties, limit such donations to state and local parties and restrict broadcast ads by outside groups shortly before elections.
Former independent counsel Kenneth Starr, whose investigation of Bill Clinton's sex life resulted in the president's impeachment in 1998, is to lead a legal challenge that will seek to knock down most of the measure as unconstitutional.
Bush said he felt the campaign bill did not fully address the need to require identification of who is funding so-called independent groups that introduce "scurrilous, untrue" television advertisements in the last days of a campaign, as he said happened to him in his 2000 presidential campaign.
"I've always thought that people who pump money into the political system, we ought to know who they are," he said.
Bush said that nonetheless the "bill is a better bill than the current system," but that some parts of it might not stand up to a court challenge.
You've gone way past what is or is not right in this case; you are demanding that Bush veto this bill to PROVE he's a conservative TO YOU.
He doesn't play like that, much to your horror, I suspect.
Afterall conservatives don't like being lied to but they hate liberals.
Conservatives are blindly loyal to no one. They are rugged individualists and critical thinkers.
This gets in the way sometimes.
If we were Liberals we would be used to and even enjoy being lied to. We would even campaign for known liars.
It's not easy being conservative. You expect things. Like honesty.
Eddie01
Dream on.
Good thing we have a man in the White House that will stand by his principles!
What next, Bush supporting open borders and amnesty for illegal aliens?
Good thing we did not elect Al Gore.
... who will be voting for George W. Bush in 2004 no matter what he does.
No, Bush never said that, but in 1999 he said "There ought to be limits to Free Speech." At least he followed through on one promise.
Bitchin' and moanin' and typing on a keyboard don't get people elected.
Thank you - couldn't have said it better myself. How quickly they turn. Well I hope they enjoy one of our Democreep hopefuls in 2004. The Democreeps are gonna have a field day.
Its especially disappointing because its a strong sign that Bush will bend to media pressure. Which means, fellow Freepers, that we shouldn't get our hopes up about Bush enacting any restrictions on abortion.
Its also disappointing because this month has shown that the real center of power in this country is not in the President, its with the Senate majority leader (who was not elected).
What you've said is just frightening.
"Congress shall make NO LAW abridging the Right to Free Speech".
I'm assuming that Bush will READ what it is he's about to sign ... right ?
Howlin,
men didn't give you the right to get together with 20 of your closest friends and take out an ad in the paper on behalf of whatever cause you find worth fighting for -
GOD gave you that Right.
Regardless of how many political points it may garner him, or how IGNORANT he may be of the basic tenants of our form of government,
if Bush signs that Bill, he will deserve to be slapped for it.
That Congress is guilty of creating, and the Supreme Court will likely kill this retarded un-Constitutional Law is NO excuse for Bush.
It's so much more fun voting for candidates that can't break 1% of the popular vote. Wa-hoo!
First, I think a simple reading of the bill makes it clear that it is in fact constitutional; one doesn't need to be a Justice of The Supreme Court to see that. Second, Bush himself indicated he believed there are constitutional issues present. If that's the case, he has a duty to veto the bill.
I think you've mistakenly led yourself to believe determining consitutionality is solely the job of the courts. In fact, it is the job of every branch of government: the lawmakers when drafting the bill, the President when signing it, and as a last resort the court system.
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.