House Passes Campaign Finance Bill

CNSNews.com ^ | 2/14/02 | Susan Jones

[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.

 

[AzSteven]

I would vote for Hayworth over McInsane.

Then again, I would vote for my cat before McInsane.

;-)

[CDHart]

Thanks for the info. I don't know whether to be depressed or disgusted.

Carolyn

[CDHart]

'Which Congresscritter was it that said "if the Constitutional test were applied, we couldn't do 95% of what we do up here."'

I don't know, but I'm not surprised. One of them also said that campaign promises were just "boob bait for the bubbas." It's not like they haven't warned us. I wonder if Bush will veto this?

Carolyn

[eaglebeak]

Ari Fleisher said this yesterday (from the CNN site):

The president has "always made clear he can't be counted on to veto" campaign finance legislation, Fleischer said.

[El Gato]

Here's the deal: To lefties, the only thing standing in the way of socialist paradise here in America is 'evil' campaign money. Particularly donations from business interests.

IMHO, they are alot more concerned with grassroots and semi grassroots organizations informing their members of the cannidates real positions and voting records, as opposed to the tornado strength spin the cannidates put out in the last 60 to 90 days of the campaign.

[Still Thinking]

Thanks for the ping. And I agree with your analysis: Hayworth GOOD; McCain BAD.

[Mustang]

"What on earth is happening here...?"

These nit-wit congrees critters are taking glee in crushing the 1st amendment. The senate will follow in this insanity.

If "W" doesn't veto this usurpation of freedom of speech, the left will win in tearing up our Constitution.

In any event, it'll go the Supreme Court. Hopefully, those who read and understand our founding principles will support our freedom and rights.

Make your voice known! Call, write, e-mail or hit the bricks!

Mustang sends.

[who knows what evil?]

Yes you have. You have also never backed up your prediction with anything of substance.

You're right...it's just a feeling I get from talking with people in various parts of the country.

There are but 10-15 seats in the House that are competitive, according to the Cook report.

That's nice. If I had a nickle for every time these 'reports', 'polls', and 'political columnists' have blown it...

The country is not in the mood to elect Democrats, no matter how many "Christians" sit out the elections.

The country doesn't have to be in the mood to elect democrats...they just need enough Republicans to stay home or to vote third party. The reasons are irrelevant, and they don't have to make sense. Maybe they are upset because we don't have a ban on 'partial-birth' abortion; others may be upset because Bush hasn't pursued the crimes of the previous administration...who knows? (No flames, please...I didn't say these were MY reasons! Just items I've overheard at local political gatherings...)

If cutting your own throat is a positive thing in your mind, no wonder non-Christians think we're stupid.

I never said anything about cutting MY own throat, nor did I say it was a positive thing. Most of the people posting to this forum are intelligent political animals, and they can effectively debate the strategies behind the current administration. However, MOST Americans are politically tone-deaf. What they know about politics comes from newspapers and television newscasts. (G-d help us.) Perception is everything, and, like it or not, stupid people have the right to vote. They also have the right to sit home. I'd LOVE to be dead wrong. But political fortunes can change overnight...I just have this uncomfortable feeling in the pit of my stomach. We'll see...

(By the way...I did vote for Bush.)

[George Frm Br00klyn Park]

"Holmes BLATANTLY stated that he didn't care about his Oath! He implied that it didn't matter!"

RFP, That's "Steney Hoyer". And' I have NO doubt he made that statement. His voting record if FILLED with instances that SHOW his disregard of the Constitution, AND his sworn word of honor. There would be NO sense in asking him where is his honor. He has NO knowledge of the meaning of the word, let alone honor itself. Steney is a self proclaimed, "Tax and spend Democrat, and proud of it!!" Peace and love, George.

[who knows what evil?]

To be a good snake handler, one must anticipate it's next 10 moves in advance.

Snakes have two moves...kill and devour their prey; without an ounce of pity and remorse. You are right...democrats are snakes, and their behavior reflects that. The Bush administration needs to show the same amount of pity for the democrats that they show for us...none. It will be VERY INTERESTING to see how this situation plays out, but NO ONE should make any rash decisions concerning the President's strategy until the end game is complete. Regarding the forty or so treasonous RINO's nesting around the country...I say; HAVE AT 'EM! Until the RINO trash is taken out to the curb, Republicans will NEVER have a TRUE majority in Congress.

[steveegg]

Mandatory public financing of all elections and a ban on all independent political advertizing would pave the way.

To achieve that ultimate objective, McCain-Feingold/Shays-Meehan constitute the necessary opening preamble. By compromising even an inch on the first amendment -- and these bills go well beyond that -- the precedent for government control over grassroots/independent political activities will have been set, greasing the skids for more draconian controls down the road -- after the next round of "reforms". The "reformers", newly emboldened, will come back for more -- again and again.

McCain-Feingold is only dress-rehersal.

At the end of this slippery-slope, in a world where private campaign expenditures are outlawed, politicians will no longer feel constrained to bend to business and corporate interests. Ergo: Socialism flows inexorably out of this new political landscape.

First, get it right <VBG>; it's McShame-Slimeroad/Shames-Noman Conservative Elimination Act of 2002. This elevates the role of the media from watchdogs to kingmakers, as the electronic portion no longer will have to give us a voice through advertisements, and they have sole control over who is on their "news and interview" shows (which will, as Rush pointed out, become unpaid ads). As the dominant media culture is socialist, that's what we'll be consigned to.

[kapn kuek]

Thanks for the info. Just called and let President Bush know how I feel. I am glad I can still have a voice in my government!

[Saundra Duffy]

They want to shut us down. If this goes through, the little people will have no voice.

[Freedom'sWorthIt]

You can also fax the White House a short letter to tell them in more detail why he must veto this sham legislation - after holding a "White House Chat" to explain to the American people - who are WITH HIM - why this legislation is so horrendous.: Fax#: 202 456 2461

[Major Matt Mason]

I was pleasantly surprised to see that my congress critter, Tom Reynolds-R (NY), voted against this abomination. I was NOT surprised to see another noted NY jacka$$, Amo Houghton-R, on the list of those that voted for CFR. Amo is another limousine liberal and RINO who is almost always on the wrong side of the truly important issues. He is definitely one rep who needs to be sent home.

[Gumption]

PhiKapMom said :

I don't want any Congressman telling me that something in Unconstitutional

By this statement I presume you don't want legislators contemplating the constitutionality of bills they are considering, and to leave that thought process up to the Supreme Court. Because if you wanted them to consider the constitutionality of proposed bill, I'm sure you would want them to express that consideration when explaining their position, to their constituents, on the particular piece of legislation they're considering.

If I stated your opinion accurately, let me tell you ... you're wrong. I'm not just stating my opinion on the matter, but the stated purpose of the separate Judicial Branch as explained by Alexander Hamilton in Federalist No. 78 that goes as follows :

Here also the firmness of the judicial magistracy is of vast importance in mitigating the severity and confining the operation of such laws. It not only serves to moderate the immediate mischiefs of those which may have been passed, but it operates as a check upon the legislative body in passing them; who, perceiving that obstacles to the success of iniquitous intention are to be expected from the scruples of the courts, are in a manner compelled, by the very motives of the injustice they meditate, to qualify their attempts.

You see, just knowing the Supreme Court would strike down any law that didn't conform to the limiting Constitution was supposed to curb the legislatures desire to advance an unconstitutional law to begin with. If you don't believe me, just follow the link and read it for yourself. I hope this changes your feeling on the matter. Thanks for listening (reading).

Take care.

[69ConvertibleFirebird]

PINGING MARYLANDERS - VOTE HIM OUT!!! PING

I wish I could!!!! I'm in the Clinton sexual assault endorser's district, of Connie Morella (R). It's really bad having to vote for her. She is an ultra-liberal DemocRAT who gives herself the Republican label. I really need to move to another state...

[RFP]

It's really bad having to vote for her.

THEN DON'T VOTE for her! Vote for the true RAT instead so you can run a Conservative against the dim in 2004. That's what I'm doing to Capito. I will vote AGAINST this RINO so that WV can run a true Republican conservative AGAINST the dim (either Jim Humphreys or Margaret Workman depending on the primary) in 2004 when Dubya Bush will be storming through The Mountain State and we have conservative Jay Wolfe for one of our Senators.

Vote the RINOS OUT!!!