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.
It is looking even better than I thought (feared)! All the good stuff, and House Pubbies get a possible lesson in political backbone and standing on their own all at once. Me likey! Westy want veto! Westy want death in committee or conference!
Even easier, the media could replay such ads FROM THE PAST --specifically described as "commentary" -- without any left-wing organization openly paying anything at all. We could see hundreds of playings of montages of "Great Political Ads from the Past", all of course anti-conservayive, in the void caused by Shays-Meehan.
We need to start describing Shays-Meehan / McCain-Feingold as the fascist political bludgeoning that it is.
Around the time Gutenberg invented printing with movable type, ca. 1450. Money has always facilitated speech in that the more money one has, the bigger megaphone one can buy.
BTW, Welcome to Earth.
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).
He should fire a warning shot over their bow, btw. That might help McConnell in the Senate.
Shot fired in the original memo. That is why it's been released. Will help McConnell now, and hpefully will send this thing into the circular file where it belongs. Barring that, I have to believe that Bush will veto this obscenity. I have called the Whitehouse as many times as my phone bill can stand. Have called my Senator, Santorum, who I am sure would never vote for this thing if it ever gets to a vote. Have mass emailed Repub Senators several times.
Swamp them. Whitehouse and Senate. This is important. Just say NO!!!
Secondly, Betty Ford is and was a social revolutionary, supporting abortion and homosexuality twenty five years ago!
Thirdly, Ford was a total suck up to the Demonrat leadership of his time having learned in 25 years of House service how to lose and kiss the shoes of Demonrat leadership.
Understand that Nixon named Ford in the undoubted belief that even Demonrats would not so jeopardize their country as to allow such a complete putz into the White House.
All of this, beginning with the appointment of His Accidency and Nixon's resignation led America to a new low: Gerald Ford vs. Jimmuh Carter.
Oh, I almost forgot. We would never have heard of Gerald Ford if it had not been for his naked and essentially anti-American ambition to defeat a solid American and Republican congressman in a primary because the congressman was not a cheerleader for the United Nations.
By now, even Jimmuh Carter looks better than Gerald Ford. The only thing you can really say for Ford was that he was not the Arkansas Antichrist.
Retroactive to 1992
In 4 years, I haven't seen much "advocacy" from JR.
Yeah, maybe he gets practical and pragmatic when confronted with reality but for this most part FR has rolled along as a free wheel. Many of us try to push him in different directions to get him to advocate things, but he ususally blows it off unless things reach critical mass.
If there is advocacy it's in regard to the constitution and conservatism ....even libertarianism, rarely if ever candidates.
We need to remember words have meanings
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.