Posted on 02/20/2002 1:21:09 AM PST by kattracks
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.
Of all the horrible things in this stupid bill, this bothers me the most. Some little old lady in a democrat majority rural county volunteers to be treasurer for her GOP local county party committee, she gets her bookkeeping mixed up, and suddenly she's indicted! Even if she wins, ask Linda Tripp how much fun it is to win a case at the cost of bankrupting yourself.
Think about how hard it is for conservatives now on college campuses, threatened with job loss and expulsion for being a conservative activist. Now think about being a conservative activist and threatened with jail time -- even if you might be willing to go, do you have a family to support? How many folks will sit down and shut up if some local Janet Reno starts talking prosecution?
And the worse part -- the punitive section isn't about free speech, so it's doubtful the SCOTUS throws it out.
He doesn't wear boxing gloves. GWB has two iron fists in velvet gloves, something the Democrats understand better, if you get my drift. :)
He can start with Judge Roy Moore of Alabama.
We must make a huge effort to educate people as to the whole scam, but most of all, I think we could deny them the whole issue if we countered with a bill of our own...remove the personal donation limits and require full, immediate disclosure. The simplicity will eliminate all the cost of compliance and will let the sun shine on who gives what to whom.
it is important to keep the pressure on by e-mailing, faxing, and calling
I just emailed the WH again today.
If the government of D.C. (or any other jurisdiction) says you cannot bring a busload of people in to protest because the bus isn't licensed, or the driver isn't licensed, or it tries to park in an area not permitted for busses -- all such "content-free" and mechanical restrictions are entirely legitimate. They apply to every bus, regardless of the political views of the passengers, if they have any political views in common.
But, if the jurisdiction tries to bar your bus and its passengers because it has a quarrel with the subject of your protest -- what you will say and represent when you get off the bus -- THAT IS a violation of the First Amendment and will be slapped down in a New York minute by any competent court, anywhere in the US.
Do you see the difference?
Congressman Billybob
Than large corporations? You can't be serious.
Politics is ALWAYS a game of DEGREES. Nothing less, nothing more. John Quincy Adams changed parties from his dad's Federalists because he didn't think he could get elected with the name "Federalist." James Monroe, ostensibly opposed to "big government," signed off on dozens of pieces of legislation building roads, a national observatory, and so on. NO ONE IS PERFECT, and while I think that the campaign finance reform bill is certainly unconstitutional, so was prohibition---until they got an amendment after most states already had "dry" laws.
I've said before and will say again: in America the people get what they want. There will be no option of a "constitutional" party if 85% of the people view that as out of touch with reality. Instead, you work with what's here, winning when you can, losing when you must.
Don't get me wrong: I support YOUR version, but I don't think you are at all grounded in reality. You can't go around society acting like things are PRACTICALLY constitutional when they aren't treated so; and you can't treat them as not when they are treated as they are. That's reality.
But let me ask you a hypothetical: are you not going to vote for James Monroe, one of our truly fine presidents, because despite his "small government stance" he signed off on dozens of public road, bridge-building, and other "pork barrel projects?" Will you not vote for Washington because he took the "unconstitutional step" of creating a cabinet?
Or are you a Lincoln basher, who wouldn't vote for (arguably) the greatest president in our history because he abridged free speech unconstitutionally during the War?
There is no pure standard. It's ridiculous to set barriers like that. You have to always compare. By comparison, Bush is light years ahead of WHOEVER I see on the horizon on either side of the aisle. Now, maybe someone else will appear. But for now, I don't see it.
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.