GOP Greases Skids to Sink Campaign Finance Bill

Capitol Hill (CNSNews.com) - The bill that many House liberals called a Valentine's Day present to the American people may quickly be stamped "return to sender" if it is delivered to President Bush for his signature.

The House passed the Shays-Meehan Campaign Finance Bill (H.R. 2356) early the morning of February 14th , over the objections of conservatives who argued that the bill imposed unconstitutional restrictions on the First Amendment rights of issue advocacy groups like the National Rifle Association, the Sierra Club and other groups from across the political spectrum.

Now conservatives on the House Republican Study Committee (RSC) appear to be laying the groundwork for a presidential veto of the bill or significant revisions in the Senate by using Bush's own words.

In an e-mail message circulated to House members and reporters Tuesday, the RSC referred to a letter President Bush wrote to then Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott (R-Miss.) last year detailing the six principles Bush believed should govern any campaign finance bill sent to the White House for Bush's signature.

According to the RSC, the version of the Shays-Meehan bill passed by the House violates all six principles.

"Not one of President Bush's six reform principles," the RSC memo claims, "is incorporated into Shays-Meehan."

No members were available to comment on whether the RSC memo is an attempt to set up a Bush veto of the bill. But White House has not ruled out a veto.

Those principles laid out by Bush, according to the letter, included:

* Protect the Rights of Individuals to Participate in Democracy
* Maintain Strong Political Parties
* Ban Corporate and Union Soft Money
* Eliminate Involuntary Contributions
* Require Full and Prompt Disclosure
* Promote a Fair, Balanced, and Constitutional Approach

Rep. Todd Akin (R-Mo.), an RSC member, says the bill doesn't even past the first of the president's six "tests."

"Shays-Meehan is blatantly unconstitutional, and is hostile to free speech. It will muzzle citizen groups by preventing them from placing ads on radio and TV 60 days prior to an election," Akin said in a statement. "The right to free speech is one of our most cherished and guarded rights and should not be infringed."

On Bush's second point David Mason, the chairman of the Federal Election Commission, told CNSNews.com the day the bill was considered that he believes it will weaken the parties.

"This is an attack on the political parties," Mason said. "And, to the extent that it survives the courts, it will succeed."

The RSC complains that the bill would severely limit what activities parties could engage in and restrict their fundraising abilities. While some may argue that that, in itself, might not be a bad thing, the RSC says the provisions definitely weaken the parties.

The group points out that Shays-Meehan would also prevent the parties from raising money to donate to other groups, and from making independent or coordinated expenditures on behalf of candidates, "decimating one of the core reasons for parties to exist, to help elect candidates to office."

RSC member Rep. Mark Green (R-Wisc.), says the bill also fails to ban soft money as Bush requested.

"While it bans soft money to national parties, it still allows millions in these unregulated contributions to go to state and local parties," Green argued after the bill was passed. "It doesn't actually attack the soft money problem, it simply shifts it from the national level to the state and local level."

Contrary to providing for the "full and prompt disclosure" called for by Bush, the RSC believes the new requirements for disclosure concerning activity that merely mentions the name of a federal candidate will actually discourage rather than encourage citizens to participate in the political process.

Attorney and campaign finance law expert Cleta Mitchell says Shays-Meehan will have exactly the opposite effect from what the president desired.

"We will have much less disclosure under this bill," Mitchell told CNSNews.com .

Rep. Ernest Istook (R-Okla.), another RSC member, admits there are problems with the current campaign finance system. Nonetheless, he is highly critical of both the Shays-Meehan bill, and its authors.

"The sponsors of this bill were lying to America about what it does and doesn't do. Their bill only pretends to fix things, while making things worse with attacks on free speech, a brand-new set of huge loopholes, and more confusion than ever," Istook said after the early morning vote."

Whether Bush would veto the bill is uncertain, and supporters of the measure have expressed optimism because the White House has not significantly weighed in on the legislation. However, a veto has not been ruled out either.

On the day the Shays-Meehan bill passed the House, presidential Press Secretary Ari Fleischer said Bush "has been very clear that he wants to sign a bill that improves the current system. Parts of that legislation surely do. Other parts are not as fully consistent with the president's principles."

Fleischer added the president will "wait to see what the final form is once it comes out of the Senate, and then he will have something declarative to state. Until then, I'm just not going to presume what action the president would take."

E-mail a news tip to Jeff Johnson.

Send a Letter to the Editor about this article.

Well, the problem is that many people---obviously MOST of our representatives, and POSSIBLY Pres. Bush---do not see these "reforms" as infringements of the Constitution. You can take the typical FREEPER attitude that anything that doesn't conform to what (____________ your name here) believes is "unconstitutional," but that is disingenuous.

The fact is, despite how horrible this bill is, I'm not going to stop supporting Bush, any more than I'm going to START supporting Gore or Hillary.

We saw in two consecutive elections the so-called "clout" of the third party Conservatives is non-existent. So that means that if I disagree with Bush on this issue, I have to find ways within the party to get even MORE conservative people elected.

Look at W's poll numbers. The man has a TON of political capital in the bank. It's time to spend some of it. (And a note to some Party handwringers: It won't be much of an expenditure. The American People don't care about campaign finance reform.)

"The contribution limits are not the worst part you can go to jail for criticizing incumbents under this bill."

Sounds like something that McCain and the rests of the socialists would really like to see passed.

Money has always facilitated speech in that the more money one has, the bigger megaphone one can buy.

So it's your contention that the more money one has, the more free speech one is entitled to. Do you similarly believe that the way things have been in the past are necessarily correct?

Welcome to the land of Illogic.

One of our most "rightous" saints of campaign finance reform has been Sen John McCain...an enabler and proponent of islamic terrorist expansion into Eastern Europe in exchange for cash infusions from KLA/NLA extortion, drug, prostitution and white slavery money. Anyone know if this proposed "campaign finance reform" bill will halt $$$'s from foreign terrorist groups?? OR is it actually the strategy of McCain and others like him to disenfranchise our own citizens while leaving the field clear for foreign psychopathic killers like the KLA/NLA to "buy" US elections and politicians?? Anybody want to take a guess who the losers will be if this legislation is enacted?

If you're going to cite the Supreme Court as a source of what is right in this case are you prepared to abide and agree with all of their decisions? Or is this a pick and choose what you like from the menu deal? If you're consistent in your acceptance it's a fair way of looking at the situation. If you're not, your stance doesn't mean anything.

The day a person paid to have a political flyer printed and distributed or paid to start a newspaper.

Twice in one sentence you used the word "paid" in reference to "free" speech. It seems odd to me.

Money=free speech. The Supremes said so.

Supremes said slavery is legal, women shouldn't be able to vote and that abortion is legal. Do you cite those decisions when forming what is right and what is wrong?

"FIRST, this bill must be referred to as The Anti-First Amendment Bill. "

I have also heard of this POS bill referred to as the "Incumbant Protection Act".

"'Not over my dead body will they curtail your free speech!'
-- President George "Dubya" Bush (I pray)"

Hope you're right but this is the son of ol' 'Read My Lips', the guy who also swore he'd never sign any new anti-gun laws.

"So it's your contention that the more money one has, the more free speech one is entitled to."

"One" can be one or "One" can be many. I always get a kick out of how small minded people automatically suggest that wealthy individuals are the big influence behind politics. Like Mr. Howell from Gilligan's Island is funnelling cash to Senator X to get a bill passed. Most money in politics comes from what has been demonized as special interest groups. These groups range from corporate lobbyists to grass roots organizations. The grass roots organizations outnumber and outspend the corporate groups as a whole.

So it's your contention that the more money one has, the more free speech one is entitled to. Do you similarly believe that the way things have been in the past are necessarily correct?

I contend nothing -- I was answering your original question. The only thing I worry about more than the lousy way things are is people like you "fixing" the world and making things "equitable."

Welcome to the land of Illogic.

A.K.A. the Land of Reality. Sorry to break the bad news to you.

"I've been confused as to why President Bush/WH hasn't been more vocal about this terrible bill - and the one in the Senate..."

The media has let Daschle, Gephardt and the rest of the democratic spin machine spew their lies across the land with no rebuttal from the GOP. And if the GOP had something to say, it is always out of context so you can't find the truth anywhere except of FR, WND and a few other of the net media, all of whom are devoted to the truth! President Bush has made it loud and clear what he will and what he won't tolerate - get behind your President and spread the word.

I guess I had my tongue planted too firmly in cheek, but you guys caught my drift. Liberal "citizens' groups" get special dispensation to sell their spew, we don't.

The best example is how the NRA ads are attacked by the left and by the media, while the NAACP and NARAL get passes from both, and that will continue, muzzled or not.

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.