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.
Either he believes in the Constitutional guarantees or he doesn't and to play politics with them makes me want to ask what else is he willing to risk.
What is wrong with standing on principle? What you are saying is that he cast his vote for political gain. Well, my friend, that is what is wrong with the nation in the first place. Not much principled leadership these days.
You may be able to justify the vote and that is your right (so far), but I can't and won't. I don't know what I will do come November but my emotional first response is to sit this one out. To my mind he (Thune) is no better than the man he would replace when it comes to principle, honor, and integrity.
Again, I am not at all suggesting that you shouldn't give a wink and a nod and support the man. I am just getting to the end of my rope on voting against the least preferred candidate. Hopefully there is a line that you too won't cross for political power, but this may not be it. I think it is for me.
Tonight I am really sick, as the man I hoped to support in the opening battle towards the ultimate removal of Tom Daschle from power, my Congressman at Large, John Thune, for purely politcal reasons, voted with the Constitutional Pirates.
From what I have gathered so far, he will get away with crapping on his base. I can't describe adequately the feelings I currently have. It is akin to the mourning process.
Are there no real leaders out there any longer who stand on principle? Is every position taken for purely political gain? And worse, where are the people demanding principles before partisan party political power?
Thanks to Mr. Thunes action last night, this night I have similar feelings to which I felt, when it became crystal clear that Trent Lott was not going to allow a "real trial" in the Senate Impeachment dog and pony show.
I am back to tagging my rants with ...
Trust me, you are not alone.
I was a card carrying, volunteer working, involved member of the G.O.P. for 32 years. When Trent Lott made the decision to have a dog and pony show instead of a real Impeachment Trial just to placate Daschle, I shortly there after re-registered with "Party Affiliation - NONE". I continued to support GOP candidates with my vote and financial support in this last election cycle for Keyes first in the primary and then GW in the general. But I did so as a little "r" republican and not as a "R" Republican.
I live in South Dakota and there is no stronger an Anti-DemocRAT than I. I have been supporting John Thune's bid for the Senate to 1) unseat Tim Johnson (D) but more importantly 2) set up 2004 to rid ourselves of Tom Daschle. I had even gone to the point of soliciting clients of mine from outside of SD, whom I knew from association over time, were like minded conservative/traditionally valued Americans, to offer financial support to Mr. Thune.
John Thune voted for CFR. I feel as you, the fight is gone and no longer will I battle for those who won't at the minimum work to insure that my right to do so isn't taken from me.
"No more fight left. Not for these traitors." Says it all.
FILIBUSTER MAY STYMIE Shays-Meehan bill: Campaign reform heads to Senate
Thanks, my friend.
FILIBUSTER MAY STYMIE Shays-Meehan bill: Campaign reform heads to Senate
Almost ALL can make a CALL! Please, Mr. President, veto this horrendous legislation!
But I can't stand J.D. Wouldn't vote for him as dog catcher.
The United States is now a passing giant still wallowing in the glory of its rise to power. Its future is measured in days rather than decades. There will be no US presidential election in 2016, unless we make substantial changes beginning now. I think it is already too late, but there will be no political possibility of making and keeping the changes required without a Term Limits Amendment. A Constitutional Convention remains the one viable chance to save the United States. And make no mistake, I think the United States is worth saving, but I believe that the last election proves there are a very large number of Americans who prefer Wonderland and Disneyland. When your heroes are Clinton and FDR instead of Washington and Jefferson, we have come a long way baby. And from the red and blue map that emerged after the election, there will be no going back. The beauty of the map is that it proved the geo-political division of the US is eminently feasible. I have come to point where I believe is preferable and desirable. Count me as a secessionist.
If you're saying that it is too late to reign in government because any attempt by a Republic will cause a Democrat to win - so Republicans need to emulate the Democrats to hold power. Well, if that is the case, then it must be time to break out the muskets and pitchforks to win our individual rights back.
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.