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.
This was one of those times when elected officials were faced with a clear choice...uphold the Constitution, as they have sworn to do, or cave in to political pressures.
I personally have NO sympathy for them...not even my own Congressman John Thune, who is facing a race against incumbent Democrat Senator Tim Johnson this year.
Every two years, my congressman, James Greenwood, puts his hand on a Bible and takes the following oath of office; "I, James Greenwood, do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same...So help me God"
In his time in congress, Greenwood has incessantly and relentlessly attacked the 2nd Amendment of the US Constitution. Somehow he believes that it is his job make it harder and harder for law abiding Americans to arm and defend themselves despite the plain meaning of the US Constitution and the guidance of Founding Fathers.
Now, Greenwood has set his sights on the 1st Amendment. He is a main supporter of the so called "Campaign Finance Bill" which has just passed the house (with both his vote and help) last night. Greenwood believes there should be an "electioneering blackout" and that no one but the "established media" and the candidates themselves should be able to run political ads 60 days prior to a general election. That no one, other than candidates or the media, should be able to report on a candidates voting record or criticize pending legislation during the blackout period without jumping through federally mandated bureaucratic hoops based on the content of the advertisement. If you want to take out an ad in this newspaper or a TV spot, you better get a lawyer because now you must comply with a host of regulations (based on the political nature of your advertisement) any one of which can result in huge fines (and even jail) if you violate them. This does not sound like "supporting and defending" the 1st Amendment of the US Constitution where congress will "make no law abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press." It sounds like an attack on the very liberties that Americans treasure.
We used to have a name for people like this; traitors, scoundrels and liars. Now we just call them shrewd politicians.
Regards,
I imagine that passed for Republicans, but carried with a special exemption for Democrats.
ALSO, President Bush won't like the fact that this doesn't go into effect this year (the amendment to do so was not passed), so he may VETO it on this ground alone.
Actually, I knew exactly what you meant, and only posted my harsh reply to you as an antidote to defeatism in our ranks. I hate defeatism.
Very important info...thanks. Do you have a link to a description of the defeat of that amendment? I would like to confirm it.
It is the old shell game, perpetuated due to the willing stupidity of the voters. It would serve all of those useless bastards right if the law stood and came back to bite them all.
This will force a new form of underground, grass-roots operations. It will be more work, but "Who Dares Wins!"
PINGING MARYLANDERS - VOTE HIM OUT!!! PING )))))))
Condit...His fate is already sealed.. voted out of office(I am hoping)
Weldon? Curt Weldon.. What happened to him?
Gads, you'd think at least these two Pubbies had more common sense to vote against this bill. Pressure is now needed to wake these pubbies up into reality of what a True Republican is!
Way to go Richard Pombo!
But, an allegedly conservative President has said he will sign it!
I don't want any Congressman telling me that something in Unconstitutional -- I can decide that for myself, will support the organizations that oppose such law on its unconstitutional grounds, and want the Supreme Court to rule on the validity of the claim on unconstitutionality.
What if the shoe were reversed and the Democrats were saying something we were for was Unconstitutional -- the "ONLY" place to get a ruling is the United States Supreme Court! The rest of us, the members of Congress, the President's Staff, etc. can all say that something is Unconstitutional but until the Supreme Court rules -- it just isn't so!
Why? Because I'm not joining libertarian , possible democrat or other party propaganda promoting folks to change parties?
I'm a Conservative Republican, and this is a conservative Republican site. I'm defending both. Do you have a problem with that?
It came up because the proponents gained the required number of signatures on a discharge petition...the mechanism in the House rules for bringing up legislation opposed by the leadership.
So, Hastert is not worthy of criticism in that regard.
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.