GOP Greases Skids to Sink Campaign Finance Bill

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

[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.

[Valin]

What is at work here?
Someone took Ari to the woodshed?

At first I thought Fleischer screwed up, but Bush really will sign this as long as the Senate doesn't put in something he opposes.
I don't think he will(ASSUMING it gets out of the senate). He's too good a pol. he has to realise that this piece of @#&^% would so alienate his base on the right that he would have to spend the next 3 yrs. trying to get it back. It's not worth it for something that has no legs outside the beltway.

[MeekOneGOP]

Just wanted to let y'all know that this bill sounds dead to me.

I think McConnell can bottle this bill up or at least change the Senate version enough to send this conference.

Bush has laid the intellectual groundwork to veto this thing if it does come out in its present form. I think he just waited for the Enron thing to subside.

He should fire a warning shot over their bow, btw. That might help McConnell in the Senate.

Hey, Chris! FSPress alerted me on post #15 to an interesting article. Can you check that out and let me know your opinion of that?? I put links on post #55 to the Washington Post article and to the FR article on post #59.

Thanks. . .

[rightwing2]

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."

And the day before,

the White House issued a few short words that deflated the House Republican leadership's painstaking effort to defeat the legislation. President Bush's press secretary, Ari Fleischer, told reporters at an off-camera briefing that the proposal Republican leaders were struggling to thwart would, "in the president's opinion, improve the system." Fleischer was delivering a message agreed to by top White House officials. Bush's Press Secretary announced that "the President wants to sign a bill that improves the current system...and it is the President's view that the current bill improves the system."

So if anyone is depending on Bush to veto this unconstitutional bill, they are likely to be sorely dissapointed because his own Press Secretary announced that the President intended to sign McCain-Feingold/Shays-Meehan only last week even in its current highly objectionable GOP Congressional majority destroying form.

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."

The question is why did Bush have his Press Secretary declare the President's inclination to sign the Democrat Incumbent Protection Act even though it violates all six of Bush's declared "principles"? Why is that Bush, like Manchurian candidate Sen. John McShame, now in bed with the Democraps on this and other issues? There is only one way the President will even possibly veto this bill and that is if the entire Republican Party leadership and grassroots pressures him relentlessly to do so. Bush, like Clinton, is known to cave to the popular will under political pressure since, like his far more disgraceful predecessor, he lacks a set of clearly-defined political core principles as demonstrated with his "flip-flop" on this issue. We certainly hope he will cave to public pressure to enforce the Constitution on this occaision.

[MeekOneGOP]

I don't think he will (ASSUMING it gets out of the senate). He's too good a pol. he has to realise that this piece of @#&^% would so alienate his base on the right that he would have to spend the next 3 yrs. trying to get it back. It's not worth it for something that has no legs outside the beltway.

I hope you're right on that. As another FReeper pointed out to me - and rightfully so - Bush swore an oath to uphold the Constitution of the US. The limits on Free Speech contained in the bill go against the constitution. Based on principal, Bush should NOT sign it. He also opposed this when he campaigned.

[Valin]

This thing is bad on so many levels. When you have both the NRA and the ACLU against something you know it has to really stink.

[Valin]

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.

Parts of it do. The increase in the amount of money a candidate can raise is one. But other than that I don't see anything else.

[MeekOneGOP]

When you have both the NRA and the ACLU against something you know it has to really stink.

LOL! That'll NEVER happen again!. . .

[jaq]

bump

[1Old Pro]

I hope that House/Senate Republicans begin to get vocal and explain why this bill is bad. They have been much too quiet and this bill cannot stand.

[sam_paine]

I don't want no stinking campaign finance bill but muzzling the NAACP, NARAL, People for The American Way, ADA, NOW and other left wing fringe groups is fine by me.

I know you're just pitching a temper tantrum, but you know you can't silence the worst of society without silencing the best....or can we?

I maintain that TV/Radio "spots" are useless for anything but LIBERAL ads, because conservative ideals are not sexy, shocking, and they take much longer than 30 seconds to give them full treatment.

You can name several legendary LIBERAL commercials off the top of your head (James Byrd, "Silent Spring" little girl picking a flower with nuke countdown in the background, etc.) but name me just ONE effective and memorable CONSERVATIVE ad....

[sam_paine]

When did money metamorphosize into speech?

When the courts said limiting expenditures required to produce speech (press, advertising, etc) is tantamount to limiting the speech itself.

[Valin]

but name me just ONE effective and memorable CONSERVATIVE ad....

It's morning in America, There's a bear in the woods.

[ravingnutter]

Bush's plan during the campaign was:

To ensure that lawmakers serve the public interest, Governor Bush will: Prohibit federally registered lobbyists from contributing to Members of Congress, while Congress is in session.

To prevent corporate boards and union bosses from diminishing the influence of individuals, Governor Bush will: Ban unions and corporations from giving "soft" money to political parties. On this issue, Governor Bush and Senator McCain are in agreement.

To ensure Americans are not forced to fund candidates they don’t support, Governor Bush will accompany the ban on soft money with legislation to: Enact "Paycheck Protection," preventing union bosses from directly spending roughly $300 million in union dues annually - without members’ permission - to support candidates of the bosses’ choosing. Senator McCain’s legislation would permit this abuse.

To protect the right of individuals to express themselves, Governor Bush will: Preserve the right of individuals and groups - from the Christian Coalition to the Sierra Club - to run issue ads. Senator McCain would protect incumbents from scrutiny by unconstitutionally restricting the right of citizens to engage in issue advocacy. Raise the limit on individual contributions to candidates by adjusting it for inflation.

To end "double-dipping" and respect donors’ choices, Governor Bush will: Eliminate the "roll-over" loophole and prevent incumbents from transferring excess funds from a prior federal campaign (for example, for the Senate) to a subsequent race for another federal office (for example, for the Presidency).

To ensure full and timely disclosure of campaign contributions, Governor Bush will: Require near real-time disclosure of contributions on the Internet, as he alone among the presidential candidates is already doing.

Source:

GWB - Campaign Finance Reform

Not sure if the link is still active...it was from georgewbush.com, the campaign website, I just happened to still have the info on file.

[Fishtalk]

The minute, indeed the millisecond, that President Bush signs this bill, I will walk away from him forever.

I do not care how beloved he is, his political party, his promptness and the wearing of proper attire in the oval office.

Any loyalty I have goes right out the door should he affix his signature to any horrendous piece of legislation that is a blatent violation of the constitution. As it is, the entire House of Representatives should be impeached.

"Congress shall make NO law ... abridging freedom of speech" it states very plainly in the constitution's first amendment.

And yet they did just this; stepped all over OUR toes because NEXT, count on it, they'll be shutting down THIS site 60 days before an election.

I'd rather have a President playing the saxaphone and getting Lewinskys in the oval office than one so hypocritical he would send our sons and daughters off to war to possibly die for the constitution they are protecting, while he willy-nilly signs legislation that is an outright violation to his oath of office to uphold this country's constitution.

Every congress critter who voted for that bill should be sanctioned.

And if the President signs it...he's just as bad.

[The Old Hoosier]

Sorry, JimRob. I'm afraid he's going to sign it IF it gets to him. McConnell is our best hope now.

[sam_paine]

The day a person paid...to start a newspaper.

Wouldn't it be nice if CFR got us back to the "bad old days" when every Tom, Dick and Tom Paine was a pamphleteer printing their own "newspaper." Wouldn't it be great to see the Old Grey Lady drown in a sea of Xerox'd FR threads on unrecyclable paper!? Ahh, to dreamm/////

[MeekOneGOP]

Not sure if the link is still active...it was from georgewbush.com, the campaign website, I just happened to still have the info on file.

The link yiels The page cannot be found, but that's ok. The information in your post is good information. Thanks!

[Valin]

You could say the "good old days" are here it's call the internet in general and a certain bunch of wild rightwing nutcases called FreeRepublic.com.

[deport]

President Bush's letter to Senator Lott referenced in the above article.......

President Bush Outlines Campaign Reform Principles

March 15, 2001

The Honorable Trent Lott
Senate Majority Leader
S-230, The Capitol
Washington, DC  20510

Dear Senator Lott:

     As the Senate prepares to consider campaign finance reform legislation, I wanted to highlight my principles for reform.  I am committed to working with the Congress to ensure that fair and balanced campaign reform legislation is enacted.

     These principles represent my framework for assessing campaign finance reform legislation.  I remain open to other ideas to meet shared goals.

     I am hopeful that, working together, we can achieve responsible campaign finance reforms.

Sincerely,

George W. Bush

---

Campaign Finance Reform

President Bush's Reform Principles

Protect Rights of Individuals to Participate in Democracy: President Bush believes democracy is first and foremost about the rights of individuals to express their views.  He supports strengthening the role of individuals in the political process by: 1) updating the limits established more than two decades ago on individual giving to candidates and national parties; and 2) protecting the rights of citizen groups to engage in issue advocacy.

Maintain Strong Political Parties: President Bush believes political parties play an essential role in making America's democratic system operate.  He wants to maintain the strength of parties, and not to weaken them.  Any reform should help political parties more fully engage citizens in the political process and encourage them to express their views and to vote.

Ban Corporate and Union Soft Money:  Corporations and labor unions spend millions of dollars every election cycle in unregulated 'soft? money to influence federal elections.  President Bush supports a ban on unregulated corporate and union contributions of soft money to political parties.

Eliminate Involuntary Contributions: President Bush believes no one should be forced to support a candidate or cause against his or her will.  He therefore supports two parallel reforms:  1) legislation to prohibit corporations from using treasury funds for political activity without the permission of shareholders; and 2) legislation to require unions to obtain authorization from each dues-paying worker before spending those dues on activities unrelated to collective bargaining.

Require Full and Prompt Disclosure: President Bush also believes that in an open society, the best safeguard against abuse is full disclosure.  He supports full, prompt and constitutionally permissible disclosure of contributions and expenditures designed to influence the outcome of federal elections, so voters will have complete and timely information on which to make informed decisions.

Promote Fair, Balanced, Constitutional Approach: President Bush believes reform should not favor any one party over another or incumbents over challengers.  Both corporations and unions should be prohibited from giving soft money to political parties, and both corporations and unions should have to obtain permission from their stockholders or dues-paying workers before spending treasury funds or dues on politics.  President Bush supports including a non-severability provision, so if any provision of the bill is found unconstitutional, the entire bill is sent back to Congress for further adjustments and deliberations.  This provision will ensure fair and balanced campaign finance reform.

[Valin]

And that's one of the reasons I believe he won't sign it. The min. His father signed that tax increase bill he was doomed to one term. IF this was a big thing out here in the hinterland I could see him signing it but I don't belive it is. Most of the people I know don't even know what CFR is.