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.
I think that if we live long enough, we will see all organizations violate every single one of it's basic, 'Core' beliefs.
I think it's time to start boycotting all 'political parties', and begin voting for qualified individuals. These 'parties' exist for the sole purpose of taking our money and controlling politicians in ways to benefit themselves.
I'm a Bush supporter but this is a matter of integrity, principle and keeping his sacred oath.
The biggest problem I have with Bush signing CFR is that it places him on the same level as Clinton. There's no difference in my mind between Clinton saying he couldn't do the right thing (fight terrorism) because the public wouldn't support him and Bush saying he can't veto CFR because whatever.
A leader does the right thing because he's a man of principle and a statesman. Bush is displaying NONE of these qualities in this act of submission.
Nonsense. Right in the bill is a provision that says all law suits for the first 60 days have to go through a panel of 3 D.C. judges (read liberal here). The bill, which is really just a series of amendments to an existing finance bill, also includes provisions to keep the other parts in force if one is found unconstitutional.
You can't just go to court and say "I don't like this bill". You have to have grounds to bring suit and each and every little part will require a lawsuit (perhaps some can be grouped).
Those of you who for whatever reason insist that this bill is good and that Bush really is conservative should stop wasting our time with this pathetic delusion.
There is no reason to expect more people to vote Republican because of Bush's breaking of his campaign promise. If anything, the opposite may well occur, as Daddy Bush should know all too well.
Even if a few RINO's went to the Senate, since there are already at least 10 RINO's there, no future "Republican" senate will be any more conservative than the present one. To get a conservative senate would require replacing 10 RINO's plus electing 10 new conservatives to replace democrats to get cloture. Not going to happen - even in the wildest Bushie exageration.
Since when does a Senator get to decide that a bill is unconstitutional?
Constitutionality now is decided by some power-sharing agreement between the congress and the courts?
Unless violation of the oath of office can be construed as a high crime or misdomeaner, no. Such violation is not defined in law as a crime at all, so I don't think there is a leg to stand on there. Certainly it's not treason, by Constitutional definition thereof, or bribery, in and of itself that is, so there are no grounds for impeachment.
Time to change boxes, and in fact that is being done, although a jury will probably never see the case, the courts are now being brought into the picture. The soap box has failed, the ballot box has failed, if the "jury box" similarly fails, to preserve and protect the Constitution, there remains only one box left.
Paging Claire Wolfe, is it time yet?
PS:And this November we are talking both houses. It will be called Rat Control.
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.