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.
Let me ask you this do you support Sen. McCain or is he too simply being a brilliant strategist by removing his oppositions "issues" by advancing their democratic agenda?
I stand by my prediction that given just Bush's first year of advancing the democratic agenda that he will be the one to force many conservatives to abandon the RINO party and vote based on their conservative beliefs and not their "strategies".
If it takes the next ten elections to net us a conservative party then so be it. But this RINO corps has got to go!
We must seek out those who can stand on their conservative beliefs and values and challenge forcefully, eloquently the liberal agenda and not capitulate to them.
It was George Bush Sr and Lynn Nofziger that gave us Bill Clinton not Ross Perot.
Can you imagine Dashcle and McCain being more marginalized ?No.
This is absurd. Bush - while imperfect - has been a very good president, but that is beside the point.
If Hillary Clinton is elected President of the United States - Commander in Chief of the United States Military - in November of 2004, that political blood is on the hands of those who cast the votes. If that includes you, congratulations. You'll no doubt be proud of your accomplishment, and it looks like you'll have plenty of company.
You're disappointed? You ain't seen nothin' yet. When Hillary Clinton is POTUS and Bill Clinton is back in the White House smoking cigars, you purists will have no one to blame for that disaster but yourselves. Then maybe you'll remember what disappointment really is.
And I'm sure the men and women in the military will be thrilled with your choice.
Any future cases of Hillary Clinton defeating Bush or anyone else would be due to his {Bush's} own negligance to uphold his oath of office. In other words why were they not tried in a court of law? "Let's move on" was the Bush response to 8 years of the Clintons unlawfull conduct. This is easy enough for even stooge to understand.
"Comrades!" he cried. "You do not imagine, I hope, that we pigs are doing this in a spirit of selfishness and privelege? Many of us actually dislike milk and apples. I dislike them myself. Our sole object in taking these things is to preserve our health. Milk and apples (this has been proved by Science, comrades) contain substances absolutely necessary to the well-being of a pig. We pigs are brainworkers. The whole management and organization of this farm depend on us. Day and night we are watching over your welfare. It is for your sake that we drink that milk and eat those apples. Do you know what would happen if we pigs failed in our duty? Jones would come back! Yes, Jones would come back! Surely, comrades," cried Squealer almost pleadingly, skipping from side to side and whisking his tail, "surely there is no one among you who wants to see Jones come back?"-- Animal Farm, George Orwell
Hope he sent over some of these.
Agreed
No no Daughter...don't confuse legitimate concern and dissent with bashing. It is the nature of Conservatives to be very critical..especially of their own. In the long run we still support the man but we have to show our disappointment when it's required....and it IS required.
To which the White House replied, "Hey, we had a senior Bush administration official call his office, and we're going to send him a pen."
Ohhhhhhhhhhhhhh baby-it just does NOT get any better. McVain can't complain to much or he will look like a spoiled, petty loser over his very smucky win. Love it. Yep. JUST LOVE IT!
Sorry, but what you ask for is unacceptable.
Sorry, but what you ask for is unacceptable.
Thank you. SO VERY WELL STATED !!!!!!
No no evad...you misunderstand me.
I'm not confusing anything; I have no problem with legitimate, informed concern.
What I have a problem with is the "I campaigned for him, but he's lost my vote!" crowd.
If you've been reading what I've been reading on FreeRepublic since this bill traveled through Congress and made its way to the President's desk, I have no idea how you could say, "In the long run we still support the man..." You may, but clearly, many do not.
After reading Bush's statement and after hearing his comments in a press conference the other day, I have no doubt that signing this bill was a strategy to kill parts of it for good. Still, the perpetually dissatisfied around here will hold it against him even if the strategy works...and if we have another Clinton presidency because of them, I, for one, will never let them hear the end of it. They may as well be Democrats, as far as I'm concerned - the end result will be the same.
As for me, I will fight with everything I have to see that those of you who want to hang Bush over this thing don't take the rest of us down with you.
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.