GOP Greases Skids to Sink Campaign Finance Bill

CNSNews.com ^ | 2/20/02 | Jeff Johnson

[jla]

You may have misinterpreted my question to Jim Robinson.
I thought it was a fair question & I just wanted to know his, & the official FR, stance.

I have every intention of voting for Dubya in three years.

By the way, and I'm being totally honest here, my late father's first and middle name was 'Eugene Debs".
His brother, my late uncle who died when I was very young, was named 'Karl Marx', (he preferred 'Bud' though).
Something tells me that my paternal grandfather wasn't as conservative as I am.

[connectthedots]

I had an article on UPI that was carried by Newsmax and posted on FR last night, The subject was why the Supreme Court would declare Shays-Meehan unconstitutional, perhaps unanimously, if this bill becomes law.

If I knew how to do it, I would link that article, here, Would someone more adept than I please do that?

Here's your link

[nutmeg]

Bump for later reading

[Charlotte Corday]

(1) - Anyone who seriously thinks that Shays-Meehan is constitutional needs to be asked "What part of Congress shall make no law don't you understand?"

(2) - How many unconstitutional laws can a President sign and still count on your support? It's obviously more than one and less than some indeterminate high number.

And yes, I know GWB has not signed this bill yet, but you seem to be giving him a pre-emptive pass to do so.

[KayEyeDoubleDee]

I would rather have you justify any limitation on my (or any other private group's) ability to enter freely into a contract with a TV station, radio station, or newspaper to sell the political advertising of my choice.

I will say that I happen to agree with the relevant USSC precedents (from what little I know and have read about them.) I would also point out that your earlier post insisting that people be consistent about their support of USSC decisions is a bit of a chimera. One can be opposed to a ruling, while still admitting that it sets an important precedent (and has importance as the final interpretation of a particular law.)

[weikel]

The part which worries me is the part where you can go to jail for criticizing incumbents in public.

[KayEyeDoubleDee]

USSC == SCOTUS

[D. Miles]

we can hope and pray our president vetoes this awful bill, but, in the mean time...ring those DC phones off the hook!

[hchutch]

There is a joke about an old bull and a young bull that I think reflects the President's approach. However, the joke does involve some 4-letter words, and would get a post pulled.

It also would be a lesson for some of the hard-liners, IMHO.

[justanotherfreeper]

Yes, isn't that little piece kept awful quiet by the media! Five years in jail or $25,000 for failing to abide by the provisions of this bill. So some grandma who volunteers to be County Party Treasurer of the Cow County GOP Party gets her figures mixed up and she ends up in the slammer. Or you distribute a flyer not paid for from the right fund and you get fined up to $25,000. Great reform. Will really encourage civic participation. </sarcasm off>

[Ole Okie]

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?

Your reply is a non sequitur.

You asked "Since when does cash equal speech?" I replied since the US Supreme Court so decreed in matters of political speech.

I can agree or disagree with any Supreme Court decision. But the fact is that under our Constitution, they are generally the final arbiters of the Constitution, and their rulings interpret the law, whether I like it or not.

Which is why we need conservative SC justices. I hope Dubya can give us some.

[Constitutional Patriot]

Wouldn't you say that environmental activist groups have more influence?

[Salvation]

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

BTTT. This is good news.

[Alamo-Girl]

Thanks for the heads up!

[DJ88]

Yes, I know which one you are talking about, LOL!! ;-)

[DJ88]

I know you did, YaYa..LOL...and I know how you feel. ;-)

[DJ88]

"The part which worries me is the part where you can go to jail for criticizing incumbents in public."

Are you serious? Is that really in the bill? I must have missed it.

[.30Carbine]

Hang any sorry SOB
caught taking money
from a foreign corporation
or government.


This bore repeating, I thought. It would be the logical start to reforming our campaign finance system.

When politicians can figure out how to stop evil men from doing evil things - despite laws that are already in place, and beginning with their own corrupt natures - then we can talk about *reform.* Until then, no amount of laws - abiding by that worthy document, our Constitution, or not - will solve the problem of influence pedalling in The Swamp or elsewhere.

[INSENSITIVE GUY]

One thing is for sure,if this nonsense becomes law they will realize in a year or two there won't be enough money to fund campaigns.Then,these same people will enact an amendment to the tax code that will"dock"every citizen X number of dollars to pay for them.

[ottersnot]

I will fight against this bill with everything I have, but the world keeps turning, and REGARDLESS of what he does with this bill, I have to think that Bush is so superior in other important ways for the Republic that it would be assinine to vote for a DEM (which is what a vote for anyone else is).

well said. I agree.