Posted on 03/27/2002 4:03:29 PM PST by rightwing2
Bush Signs Campaign Finance Bill; NRA Sues
NewsMax.com Wires
Thursday, March 28, 2002
WASHINGTON – President Bush on Wednesday signed campaign finance legislation that restricts speech and bans unregulated donations to political parties. "I believe that this legislation, although far from perfect, will improve the current financing system for federal campaigns," Bush said in a statement. The measure immediately drew legal challenges. Within a short time of Bush's signing, Sen. Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., had filed suit, as had National Rifle Association. Both denounced the law's infringement on freedom of speech. The law "eviscerates the core protections of the First Amendment by prohibiting, on pain on criminal punishment, political speech," said a legal complaint filed on behalf of NRA and its political victory fund. "We are proud to be one of the first plaintiffs to formally ask the federal court to invalidate these new limits on the political speech of ordinary citizens because we believe that this law cannot be allowed to stand, not even for a moment," stated Wayne LaPierre, executive vice president of the gun rights group. Bush signed the bill as he traveled to Greenville, S.C., and Atlanta to talk with emergency workers and on campaign fund-raising jaunts for Reps. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., and Saxby Chamblis, R-Ga.
The U.S. Senate approved the legislation on March 20 on a 60-40 vote that came hours after a last-ditch attempt to filibuster the bill. It was an identical version of the measure passed in February by the U.S. House of Representatives, avoiding a conference committee that could have been used to kill the bill. The campaign finance bill was sponsored by Sens. Russ Feingold, D-Wis., and John McCain, R-Ariz. Upon learning Bush signed the bill, McCain issued a statement saying, "I'm pleased that President Bush has signed campaign finance reform legislation into law."
'I May Hesitate'
While traveling through El Salvador on Sunday, Bush joked with reporters about placing his name on the bill once it arrived at the White House: "It will probably take about three seconds to get to the W, I may hesitate on the period, and then rip through the Bush." The law bans unlimited contributions, known as "soft money," to national political parties and restricts issue ads aired by interest groups before elections. Bush had called the measure "flawed" but had said he would sign it. "I wouldn't have signed it if I was really unhappy with it. I think it improves the system," Bush told reporters during a stop at Greenville firehouse. "And it improves the system because it enables an individual to give more money. And I want to do is have a system that encourages more individual participation, as well as more disclosure." Still, he said, he had been concerned about a system where money was given to entities and stakeholders had no say. He said he was concerned mostly about corporate shareholders and labor union members not having the ability to object to how their money was being spent. However, although no one is required to buy stock in any company, many workers must pay union dues to have a job.
Opponents of the bill, such as McConnell, say the new law represents an unconstitutional limit to political speech. They note that limiting political advertising by non-affiliated groups will protect incumbents, further empower the media and remove the ability of citizens to band together over common political causes. McCain said last week the scandal surrounding bankrupt Enron Corp., and revelations that the energy trader had donated money to 72 of 100 senators and had pushed electric supply and commodities deregulation though the U.S. Capitol and state houses, helped the cause. Copyright 2002 by United Press International.
All rights reserved.
LOL.... Oh, the not so subtle slap.....
No. I don't remember there being a big firestorm ,when Reagan nominated O'Conner for the SC. President's have no idea how a SC appointment will trun out 10-20-30 years down the road. Just ask Eisenhower about Earl Warren and Warren Burger. And ask Nixon about John Paul Stevens.
We don't always have to agree with the coaches decision (President), but we need to put some things behind us for the good of the team, especially when they are good decent men like Reagan and Bush.
Sounds good to me. We're in agreement.
Just as his dad so cavalierly squandered his position after being a war commander in chief hero.
I predict that given this idiotic "strategy" Rush says the White House is using, I predict that there will rise a third party conservative candidate that will pull enough votes away from Bush II's reelection bid to give( HIllary??? ) a Democratic victory in the next election.
Those of us who said this were raked across the coals here on FR, called traitors and democrat enablers. "You will just cause democrats to get elected and you will continue to lose more rights" was the chant I kept hearing.
If you keep voting Republican no matter what kind of BS legislation those idiots keep signing, then you are the ones who are causing us to lose our rights.
Only if people are stupid enough to allow that to happen. If the climate at FreeRepublic is any indication, they are. You want to talk about an "idiotic 'strategy'"? Abandon Bush over this, and vote for some third party candidate or write in Alan Keyes.
That's an idiotic strategy.
They'll give us another President Clinton.
That's unforgivable.
The GOP won't necessarily move right. They could decide to go where the votes are. In which case, conservatives are marginalized, and we are in worse shape than we are now.
Help Fight Shays-Meehan (CFR) Special to FreeRepublic | 23 March 2002 |
Congressman Billybob (John Armor)
Posted on 3/23/02 5:13 PM Central by Congressman Billybob
Help Fight Shays-Meehan (CFR)
As many of you know, one of your colleagues, Congressman Billybob (John Armor, Esq., in real life) will file one of the briefs in the US Supreme Court in opposition to Shays-Meehan.
He will file it on behalf of the American Civil Rights Union, which believes in protecting and enforcing the Constitution as written. One of its Advisory Board members is the Hon. Robert Bork.
This brief does not depend on your responses to this notice. It will be filed in any event. But all FReepers who wish to play a role in the effort to have Shays-Meehan declared unconstitutional, are invited to contribute what they choose to the ACRU. It is a tax-deductible, legal charity.
All who contribute at least $25 will receive a copy of the Supreme Court brief. Please visit the ACRU site to confirm that their vision of the Constitution is the same as yours, and the same as that of Jim Robinson and FreeRepublic.
Then if you wish to help, mail your checks to:
American Civil Rights Union 3213 Duke Street Number 625 Alexandria, VA 22314
Be sure to include your name and address if you wish to receive a copy of the Supreme Court brief. Write "FreeRepublic" on the memo line of your check so we know you responded to this appeal. Include your screen name if you would like to be thanked publicly on this thread. Do NOT send any contributions greater than $100. Reserve such large donations for FreeRepublic.
You will NOT get on any mailing list, snail mail, e-mail, or otherwise, by responding to this request. All information will be kept in strict confidence, unless you include your screen name so you can be thanked on this thread by that name.
By the way, the ACRU was the client for the very successful brief also filed by Congressman Billybob in the Bush/Florida case. The text of that brief was posted on FreeRepublic in December, 2000.
If you have any questions about this message, please contact: congressmanbillybob@earthlink.net
Thank you for your consideration of this request for help. (Both Congressman Billybob and the American Civil Rights Union are entirely independent of FreeRepublic. However, this request is being posted with the permission of Jim Robinson.)
Ok boys and girls, as the old saying goes talk is cheap.
I DON'T WANT ANOTHER CLINTON IN THE WHITE HOUSE, and people may consider me AT WAR with anyone who would contribute to that happening - conservative or not.
Thanks, hchutch. Much appreciated.
IMHO the best thing for conservatives would have been for Bush to have gotten trounced by Gore in the last election because the Republican base had fled to the 3rd parties. If that had happened you could be damn sure they would have been kowtowing to the conservatives in the next election.
What about the best thing for America?
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.