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

Skip to comments.

GOP Greases Skids to Sink Campaign Finance Bill
CNSNews.com ^ | 2/20/02 | Jeff Johnson

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.



TOPICS: Breaking News; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: silenceamerica
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 121-140141-160161-180181-193 last
To: weikel
That worries me greatly, too, and if the GOP and opponents of this will play it right, that would be the PRIMARY aspect of opposing the bill, rather than a bunch of crap about "who benefits and who is restrained" by the "limits."

Average people do understand "jail." It is very simple.

181 posted on 02/20/2002 5:35:41 PM PST by LS
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 146 | View Replies]

To: Clarity
What it means is what it means. People who say, "I will abandon the GOP and hope it dies/help kill it because it doesn't vote for/against 'x' are exactly the same as the people in 1824 who abandoned the Jeffersonian Republicans to create a better, "more pure" party. That would be the Dems. We see where that got us.

So will I abandon Bush if he signs this? No. That would be stupid. On the other hand, if someone else equally strong on national defense, pro-life, and OPPOSED to this stupid bill comes along, then I would certainly shift my support to that person, all things being equal. But I will not cut off my nose to spite my face. Bad as this law is, it is (if it passes) mere statute law and could be repealed or destroyed as easily as we ended welfare.

182 posted on 02/20/2002 5:40:30 PM PST by LS
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 179 | View Replies]

To: E.G.C.
FYI - Here's a quote from today's Rush Limbaugh show that is posted at the top of his website...

"Asked point-blank on This Week, on January 23rd, 2000, if he would veto McCain-Feingold or Shays-Meehan, Bush said that he would. Will he? He's an honest man." - Rush Limbaugh Radio Show, 2/20/02

Let's hold The President to this campaign promise!!!!!!!

183 posted on 02/20/2002 6:50:32 PM PST by dittomom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: Cobra64
GWB needs to take off his gloves battling Daschle, Gephardt, and Kennedy.

Amen.

184 posted on 02/20/2002 7:08:09 PM PST by nicmarlo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: sakic
Did you say something?
185 posted on 02/20/2002 8:03:39 PM PST by Valin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 111 | View Replies]

To: kattracks
I think it was yesterday on Rush's show there was a guy who was talking to Rush about this very letter G.W. wrote to Sen. Lott. I believe our President will keep his word and tell the American people what the dems/libs have tried to foist on us. If I were in the congress and I had voted for this piece of junk, I would be backpeddling very fast.
186 posted on 02/20/2002 9:28:27 PM PST by CyberAnt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dittomom
AMEN!!!
187 posted on 02/21/2002 2:30:52 AM PST by E.G.C.
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 183 | View Replies]

To: Valin
I give up. Did I say something?
188 posted on 02/21/2002 4:21:08 AM PST by sakic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 185 | View Replies]

To: Jim Robinson
Crossed fingers!
189 posted on 02/21/2002 4:24:36 AM PST by RobbyS
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

Comment #190 Removed by Moderator

To: sakic
"Than large corporations? You can't be serious."

I don't recall many industries being driven out of existence or private property being confiscated due to the interests of large corporations. Now, take some questionable endangered species of moth, put it in your back yard or your timber forrest...

191 posted on 02/21/2002 8:13:39 AM PST by Constitutional Patriot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 177 | View Replies]

To: Constitutional Patriot
I don't recall many industries being driven out of existence

Which side are you arguing? Why would they drive themselves out?

Environmentalists have had more influence than oil, cigarettes, credit card companies? Get real.

192 posted on 02/21/2002 8:43:44 AM PST by sakic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 191 | View Replies]

To: sakic
I guess it comes down to what kind of influence and how it effects disinterested parties. Phillip Morris can spend all of the money it wants in DC, but I am never going to buy a pack of cigarettes. The enviro's will spot a puddle in my backyard and then lobby congress to have my private property declaired a "wetland refuge".
193 posted on 02/21/2002 9:35:33 AM PST by Constitutional Patriot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 192 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 121-140141-160161-180181-193 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