Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

House Passes Campaign Finance Bill
CNSNews.com ^ | 2/14/02 | Susan Jones

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.

 


TOPICS: Breaking News; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: banglist
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 61-8081-100101-120 ... 221-236 next last
To: R2
I am really not sure about that but would assume that the SCOTUS will strike down the parts of the bill that are Unconstitutional preserving those sections that are okay. Will see if I can find out anything. Would expect the NRA to be giving details of their challenge to this bill as soon as the President signs it.
81 posted on 02/14/2002 5:41:10 AM PST by PhiKapMom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]

To: PhiKapMom
...but people in swing districts do not have that same level of comfort in their races.

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.

82 posted on 02/14/2002 5:43:06 AM PST by EternalVigilance
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 77 | View Replies]

To: kattracks
Dear Editor,

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,

83 posted on 02/14/2002 5:43:10 AM PST by 2banana
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Miss Marple
The Senatorial Committee has been downsizing their spending plans for this election cycle for weeks, in the knowledge that this was going to pass and that it is going to take effect in time for this election cycle.
84 posted on 02/14/2002 5:46:26 AM PST by EternalVigilance
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 76 | View Replies]

To: dtom
Dose anybody know if the amendment banning non-U.S. citizens from making campaign contributions was passed.

I imagine that passed for Republicans, but carried with a special exemption for Democrats.

85 posted on 02/14/2002 5:46:36 AM PST by Lazamataz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 78 | View Replies]

To: concerned about politics
You haven't proven anything to my satisfaction and I'm pretty easy to please, and you can't read either. You are the divisive element on this thread. I haven't nor has anyone else made statements regarding vote swaying. You are showing your lack of political awareness if you think there are very many choices for a vote, other than dem, or rep. so kindly spend more effort on your response and less on html cuties and obvious "war on drugs" accusations about intentions you know nothing about. Please.
86 posted on 02/14/2002 5:49:06 AM PST by wita
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 80 | View Replies]

To: kattracks; EternalVigilance; 4wvueers; 9mmmel; AriFan; BlackbirdSST; ConservaChick...
However, the CAPITO (R-WV) "even playing field"/ "millionaire" amendment PASSED!!! What this means is that candidates who contribute over $350,000 of their personal money to their own campaigns allow their poorer opponents to allow supporters to TRIPLE their Hard Money contributions. Some senators may not like this.

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.

87 posted on 02/14/2002 5:49:56 AM PST by RFP
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: who knows what evil?
I didn't say a damn thing about quitting from a PERSONAL perspective. But I am keenly aware that there many out there who will, because they are sick and tired of being betrayed by the Republican party; over and over again. Many may sit out the upcoming election, and many others may turn to the Constitution Party, among others. We'll see how it plays out.

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.

88 posted on 02/14/2002 5:52:11 AM PST by EternalVigilance
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 74 | View Replies]

To: RFP
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.

Very important info...thanks. Do you have a link to a description of the defeat of that amendment? I would like to confirm it.

89 posted on 02/14/2002 5:55:21 AM PST by EternalVigilance
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 87 | View Replies]

To: kattracks
At least Mike Rogers voted right.
90 posted on 02/14/2002 5:56:48 AM PST by Dan from Michigan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: gore_sux
This is how they fool the idiot voters. Pass feel-good sounding laws that they know will not pass muster, but then they blame the judges who rule based on the Constitution.

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!"

91 posted on 02/14/2002 5:59:19 AM PST by Redleg Duke
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: 2yearlurker; 69ConvertibleFirebird; 7thson; AbeLincoln; Abundy; AL932; AnnaSASsyFR...
Steney Holmes (RAT-MD) was quite vocal in explaining that "it doesn't matter that we know this bill is unconstitutional - it is then the Supreme Court's job to make the final call." WRONGO you STUPID RAT! You took an OATH of OFFICE to UPHOLD the Constitution! Henry Hyde and others then tried to explain the reason he took his Oath. - like talking to a brick wall - Holmes BLATANTLY stated that he didn't care about his Oath! He implied that it didn't matter!

PINGING MARYLANDERS - VOTE HIM OUT!!! PING )))))))

92 posted on 02/14/2002 5:59:21 AM PST by RFP
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 87 | View Replies]

To: kattracks
I am confused as to why this came to a vote in the house right now. They just killed this awful bill last year in the house, and now the Hastert-led Majority leaders allowed it up again.

In days past, I understood that the Speaker has complete control over bills coming to the floor. Alternatively, the Senate rules allowed the minority leader to bring bills to the floor. Now, we have a weak Republican house leadership that does not control the House agenda, while the Dem majority leader (by one vote) has absolute control over Senate bills arriving on the floor. How did this happen?
93 posted on 02/14/2002 6:02:54 AM PST by ilgipper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kattracks
Bono? Mary Bono... She is insane!

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!

94 posted on 02/14/2002 6:03:41 AM PST by runningbear
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: JohnHuang2
Where were Harry and Louise when we needed them on this one?
95 posted on 02/14/2002 6:04:14 AM PST by CPT Clay
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: concerned about politics
NOT ONE CONSERVATIVE REPUBLICAN VOTED FOR THIS BILL!

But, an allegedly conservative President has said he will sign it!

96 posted on 02/14/2002 6:04:35 AM PST by j_tull
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: Phantom Lord
You're right. Makes zero sense, but I guess that is a good thing because the issue he is wrapped around is warped. There is one listed in Chenango Bridge....... Must be an escapee.
97 posted on 02/14/2002 6:04:54 AM PST by b4its2late
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: EternalVigilance
As I posted on another site -- There are three branches of Government -- the Congress that makes the Laws, the President who signs the Laws, and the Supreme Court who rules on the Constitutionality of the Laws made by the Congress and signed by the President. It is about time that instead of people making their own decisions as to what meets constitutional muster, that the Supreme Court whose duty it is to rule on the Constitutionality of a Law be allowed to fulfill their responsibilities.

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!

98 posted on 02/14/2002 6:06:44 AM PST by PhiKapMom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 82 | View Replies]

To: wita
You are the divisive element on this thread.

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?

99 posted on 02/14/2002 6:07:27 AM PST by concerned about politics
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 86 | View Replies]

To: ilgipper
I am confused as to why this came to a vote in the house right now. They just killed this awful bill last year in the house, and now the Hastert-led Majority leaders allowed it up again.

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.

100 posted on 02/14/2002 6:09:41 AM PST by EternalVigilance
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 93 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 61-8081-100101-120 ... 221-236 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson