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.

 

[JohnHuang2]

an = a

[rbmillerjr]

I will have more to post on this later (after get the kids to school)

But let me just say, as I promised my wife 2-3 yrs ago, that I no longer belong to the Republican Party. I wont be a party to a Party that votes to kill itself. More later.

[StriperSniper]

Which Congresscritter was it that said

Don't know if it was him, but it sure sounds like Ron Paul.

[Beenliedto]

Portman, Ohio voted NO.

As did Jones of North Carolina... Glad I live in his district.

[ken5050]

Thanks..At first read..I thought it was a refernce from "The Scarlet Pimpernel."

[prognostigaator]

"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."

May I add that the 'tartuffery' ,in addition to your critical observation above relating to free speech, is also skewed by our incumbent lawmakers conveniently redistricting to permit their constituents all of the free speech [and votes] that they desire for at least ten years........

[Excuse_My_Bellicosity]

This morning on the radio, I accidentally got on to a CNN affiliate. They praised it as a landmark piece of legislation. CNN loves it, that's all I need to know.

[firewalk]

If Torricelli switches sides and joins a filibuster, all bets will be off.

IMO, Torricelli might join a filibuster, because he needs to be seen as trying to get something done in the Senate. After all, he wants to be re-elected in what might be a very interesting (for lack of a better word) election here in NJ.

From everything I've read, Robert Ray is expected to announce next month(?) that he will take a shot at running as the Republican candidate. I think Torricelli is worried.

[JohnHuang2]

hehe

[xzins]

By compromising even an inch on the first amendment --

You forget that RELIGION is the initial subject dealt with in the First Amendment. That provision has been compromised for YEARS (Congress shall make no respecting an establishment of religion, nor preventing the free exercise thereof.) Free Exercise has been prevented by redefining the word "establishment" to mean "existence."

God said I can believe and practice what I want. God said that I can speak my mind on any subject at any time.

Wonder why they attacked religion first in the socialist dismantling of the 1st Amendment? It was only a matter of time to get rid of free speech also.

All freedoms are intertwined.

[JohnHuang2]

Excellent point, my friend.

[4CJ]

"I have a long memory."

Bump.

[Phantom Lord]

My congressman is Daivd Price. He sucks. No way to defeat him with Durham and Chapel Hill in the 4th district. But Walter Jones is a fine man and he and my wife know each other fairly well.

[wita]

Halleluia, another convert. I saw the handwriting on the wall about the time I came to FR. There are not many party choices other than the big two, but the Constitution Party platform has the most appeal for me, and thus, I am one.

[JohnHuang2]

From everything I've read, Robert Ray is expected to announce next month

Exactly -- talk about a steelcaged match up.

[Phantom Lord]

From todays Press & Sun Bulletion...

Letter: Politicians addicted to campaign cash

Campaign financing is America's drug addiction. It is forcing huge corporations into bankruptcy, with their products in a seller's market, no competition and no taxes. Their largest expense is financing campaigns. The number of congressional committees that hold bankruptcy inquiries measures the addiction depth. The addiction allows foreign nations to take over our government subliminally. Any foreign nation, by financing campaigns, can manipulate us into fighting for them.

Labeling laws with campaign issue names, giving voters crumbs, but burying within the law repayment of campaign financiers perpetuates the addiction. The funds in the federal budget have gone from surplus to deficit and will proceed to oblivion to feed the habit.

Politicians resist shaking the habit, but the cure is within their grasp. The federal government owns the airwaves and licenses use to radio and television to "serve the public." Politicians without addiction can make free campaign air time available and outlaw campaign financing, but we have only one.

ROBERT NEW

BINGHAMTON

What the hell is this guy talking about? I can not make a bit of sense from this. Check to see if he is a resident of the local mental hospital. Or possibly a recent escapee.

[victim soul]

"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."

The passing of this bill has destroyed any "public confidence" in allowing we, the people, to have any voice in the public square during the height of election fever.

[Red Jones]

the constitution means nothing. The courts don't take it seriously at all. Ask yourself if there's anywhere in the constitution that bans partial birth abortion. The supreme court says so, so the constitution means anything the judges say it means. It is of no protection at all. If this new campaign finance reform is fashionable, then it will be enforced by the courts.

[Skooz]

John Sweeney - Kingmaker

Welcome to big labor's utopia. You can bet Mr. Sweeney has a big smile on his face this morning.

[artsy]

Dashle said that any controversial legislation must have a 60 vote majority to be worth the trouble to bring it to the floor. (just like the stimulus bill) It will be interesting to see if he maintains this stance. Anything that makes the party of the "lawless leading the ignorant" happy has to be corrupt.