Posted on 02/14/2002 1:52:44 AM PST by kattracks
(CNSNews.com) - They did it: Following a 16-hour debate, the U.S. House of Representatives early Thursday morning passed a bill that would change the nation's campaign finance laws - for the better, said supporters; and for worse, said critics.
The vote was 240-189, with 41 Republicans and one independent voting for the Shays-Meehan bill, 12 Democrats voting with 176 Republicans and one independent against it.
The measure that passed around 2:30 a.m. is close enough to the Senate version that it could go straight to the Senate floor for a vote, in which case Republicans are promising a filibuster; or if the Senate doesn't accept it outright, it could move into a conference committee first.
President Bush, much to the dismay of some Republicans, is expected to sign the measure once it reaches his desk.
Here's some of what the House-passed bill does: It bans unregulated "soft-money" given to national political parties by corporations, unions, interest groups, and individuals; but it would allow soft-money contributions to state and local parties, up to a $10,000 limit.
It allows individuals to donate up to $2,000 (from the current $1,000 limit) to political candidates. And it also restricts broadcast advertising in the sixty days before an election.
The latter provision may provide the "meat" for a legal challenge. Opponents - who already are threatening to sue -- say restricting broadcast advertising before an election is tantamount to restricting free speech.
As for the soft-money ban, opponents say it is nothing more than a move to protect political incumbents against challengers who are less well known.
On the other hand, campaign finance "reformers" say the bill will help restore public confidence in the political system where money buys influence. Nonsense, say critics, who insist that money talks - always has and always will. They say politicians will find ways around the law, or simply walk through its loopholes.
Read it again.
;-)
"By their fruits you will know them."
"A good tree can only bear good fruit."
"A bad tree will only bear bad fruit."
We have a key Senate race going on in NC. Elizabeth Dole is another Rino running in that election. I was ready to go all out to work for her election here....including making what for my hubby and me would be our largest political donation ever - because we feel so strongly about the damage that will be done to this nation if her rat opponent is elected. She is having a fundraiser later this month in Charlotte to which our President is coming.
Not only will I not contribute and won't attend, I will not work for her election in any way. Why should I? Why should I work to get elected another Republican who will be swayed to vote for more unconstitutional laws such as this one? She is already pro choice and anti-2nd amendment (which begs the question why I would support her anyway. THe answer is that I would support anyone over a Rat. However, not now. The Rats in OUR PARTY are as bad as the other RATS and our President and his advisors thinks he should not take a stand for an anti-constitutional, anti-American, anti-freedom bill that was passed by anti-Republicans pretending to be Republicans working in concert with HIllary CLinton's army!
Even if he does take the right stand and veto this bill - which the Rats want him to do - they have the votes to overturn his veto. They know they do. Why? Because THEY LIE, CHEAT, USE EXTORTION, BLACKMAIL, AND BRIBERY to get their way and nobody lifts a finger to stop them.
So, by supporting Elizabeth Dole I am simply going to help put one more person in there voting against my interests.
Why would I do that?
This vote by members of the Republican party who, in my opinion, should be put out of the party but who are more welcome in my party than I am - as a Conservative Christian - just seals my decision.
No more fight left. Not for these traitors.
Not only that, but wouldn't it be wise to wait and see IF and/or WHAT "the fat lady sings" before getting hysterical?
It ain't over yet. Bush and company are expert "snake handlers". That's what I'm counting on. They have been taking issue after issue away from the DemocRATS, and this is one of the DemocRAT biggies. It is THE biggie for McCain -- the vicious, vindictive one who has made himself Bush-enemy #1.
I think it would be wise for us not to be making hasty judgments based upon the information (for public consumption) we have so far. Let's just stand back and continue to watch Bush handle that snake McCain and the rest of his DemocRAT friends.
BTTT for there's more going on behind the scenes than we know. To be a good snake handler, one must anticipate it's next 10 moves in advance. My own opinion ... but I think Bush & company have it covered. :D
You want us to believe you have "sources" inside the Supreme Court who are telling you how the nine Justices will rule?
You strain credulity here.
PINGING ARIZONIANS - JD Hayworth was AWESOME on this issue. He did a hilarious "Rush-like" impression of Klintoon dealing with the Red Chinese which then got him in trouble with the house leadership and made Steny Hoyer cry.
J.D. Hayworth for US Senate! - BEAT McBANE!!
PING )))))))
Yes. Imagine a country with 8 more years of Clinton. That's what we'll have is libertarians sway Republican voters over one issue. Libertarians and liberals are very much the same. The only diff is who pays for it.
Fight the issue, not the party.
They need 2/3 to over ride his veto. They don't have it.
House Speaker Schedules Vote Next Week on Campaign Finance Overhaul WASHINGTON, Feb. 5 — Speaker J. Dennis Hastert announced today that the House would vote next week on a long-stalled bill that would amount to the broadest campaign finance legislation since the Watergate era.
8 replys
and no one cared here about it. Hummmm and now how many republicans voted for it? What a disgrace....
Term limits would be worse and more restrictive our the people's freedoms than this BS that was just passed in the House!
Term limits doesn't limit a politician - it limits who WE THE PEOPLE can vote for. What if we vote in the best Congressman to ever be seated - he leads the Congress, respects the Constitution, and saves kittens from trees and stuff - but suddenly on some arbitrary date I wouldn't be able to vote for him because of some stupid Term Limit law.
Also, Term Limits freakin' guarantee ever politician a lame duck term. A term of office (2 years for House, 6 years for Senate) where they are not accountable to the citizens of their state because they aren't afraid of getting voted out of office in the next election.
Term Limits were discussed in the original constitutional convention and soundly defeated. Are you and the other Term Limits supporters so arrogant to second guess the brilliance of our founding fathers to make such a significant alteration of the Constitution and the electoral process.
I will fight Term Limits at every step because they are destructive to the freedom of the people and an affront to the Constitution.
The answer to today's political problems and excess is not silly ideas like campaign finance reform or term limits. The answer is to elect a Congress that will respect the limits placed upon it by the Constitution. Don't settle for anything less - don't vote for the lesser of two evils just because he has a freakin' (R) next to his name on the ballot. Then hold their feet to the fire - make them follow their oath and to not vote for anything that exceeds the limits of the Constitution.
But I do have sources in places where they are deciding where to spend money this year...and virtually all of them have expressed no confidence that this is going to be overturned.
At this point, I believe it to be foolish to stake our hopes on either a presidential veto, or a decision overturning this in the courts.
Our focus should be on sending reinforcements to help the Republicans who held firm against this bill.
I expected that crap from Upton, who is being primaried by Dale Shugars, a conservative. However, I expected better from Nick Smith who is usually one of the better ones.
Also, Vern Ehlers voted against the final bill which is good, but he slapped the 2nd amendment in the face with his ASD(anti self-defense) vote on the Pickering amendment, so he has dishonorable mention.
Also, Pro-2a Democrat Jim Barcia broke with his party and voted right on the final bill, and also Pickering. He is facing Liberal Rat Dale Kildee in a primary. Anyone that lives in the Flint, Saginaw, Bay City area should vote for Barcia in the primary.
That is a valid point. But it is not enough for me to put into the fight what I was ready to put in.
PS: I'd be surprised if she gets any NRA endorsement his year.
WOW!!! I just read your post, and totally agree! (See reply #125).
Bump
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.