GOP Greases Skids to Sink Campaign Finance Bill

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.

exactly...These clowns just cant seem to grasp the fact that Bush is not a conservative and they were dooped by all the NRLC/Pat RObertson anti-McCain saber ratt'ling only becasue these beltway right types feared their ablity to get raw power would be cut short. Now they are getting what they barganed for and still are clinging to straws and drinking the kool-aid.

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.

Yes, he has, gentlemen:

* 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

I think the American people would favor Bushs' CFR 100%

. 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."

At that time, I think Bush thought the Union issue was in the bill. To stop union power, and not fource members to donate via dues.
The democrats changed the bill he was familiar with, and put the union power BACK INTO the bill in the dark of night. They tried to trick him when he wasn't looking.

The FIRST thing the Repubs have to learn is to (mis)use language like the Dems do so well. FIRST, this bill must be referred to as The Anti-First Amendment Bill. Every time it's discussed, it must be called the Anti-First Amendment Bill. It has to be drilled into every voter's head that it is The Anti-First Amendment Bill. This is how the Dems play to win. We should do the same thing. Perception is everything to voters.

I've been confused as to why President Bush/WH hasn't been more vocal about this terrible bill

I had my concerns about this too until I realized that the biggest beneficiaries of this bill, the media, it's going to say one word about this knowing that the people will rip their local reps and senators a new one regarding the issue of free speech.

If the bill passes as is and it becomes a felony for citizens to run political advertisements 30 days prior to an election, the media can bombard us with liberal propaganda and such and we can't launch a legitimate response!

I imagine most conservative leaders are concern and vocalizing that concern, but I don't believe for a second the media will air it.

You probably won't hear a peep about this on ABC, NBC, SEE-BS or CNN because of that alone.

This is going to rely soley on the people to respond to this tyranny and let them know it won't stand.

The liberal media is all to happy to see our rights trampled and to gain a monopoly on political broadcasts 30 days prior to an election.

A veto would be marvelous...but think of the incredible deriliction of duty of the Congress. In order to avoid negative media and make the President use up his political capital (instead of Congress standing up and using theirs), Congress knowingly (well, that's a relative term given how much our royal Congressmen/women know about what they are voting on) passes an unconstitutional bill, openly violating the first amendment rights of every citizen because it is popular with elites (media).

And we're left with the President to bail out the Congress from their own blatantly despotic actions. Even if the President saves us from it, it's still a sad day when the Congress becomes no more valuable to our system than the old Roman Senate was under the Caesars.

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.

How naive can you be? All these leftist groups won't be silenced, they will simply go to the media who will carry their water willingly.

You want real campaign finance reform?

Repeal the 17th Amendment.

Without the direct election of Senators, most of the problems with money and influence in the legislative process would be curtailed.

The donations which are used to gain access or to influence positions and votes are used for elections. Senator McCain says that everyone is tainted by it; so let's remove the need for it.

Not only would this minimize the ability of PACs and special interests and big money to influence the Senate, it would also make it so that such influence being applied to the House would take a hit as well. After all, what good would it do special interests to buy approval for something in the House if they cannot do the same in the Senate?

The best campaign finance reform we could ever have is to go back to having Senators appointed for six year terms by the legislative branch of each of their respective states.

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?
This memo from the House members is a good tactic. It subtly reminds the White House that President Bush would have to go back on his word, to sign this bill. However, the White House tactic is also solid at this point.
Ari Fleischer is, at this point, ambiguous about whether the President will veto this bill. That keeps the feet to the fire in the Senate. The Senators must seek to stop it there, not being certain that the President will save their bacon.
So far, all players in this elaborate dance are taking the correct steps to keep this bill from becoming law. Because of that, I believe this bill will die in the Senate. No veto will be required. No Supreme Court review will take place.
Lordy, I wish I could get on one of the talking head shows on TV and take apart any supporter of this blatantly unconsttutional bill, brick by brick.

Congressman Billybob

"Not over my dead body will they curtail your free speech!"

-- President George "Dubya" Bush (I pray)

You better pray harder Jim, the provision has been in every version of the bill as far as I can tell and one might think that he would taken time out of his busy schedule sometime over the past year to say that it is DOA if it reaches his desk with that in it. It would save everyone a lot of trouble and worry and you could spend your time praying for something other than that which should be a slam dunk.

Democrats WANT Bush to veto this bill.
Soft money from unions and organizations is their lifeline, and they can also say Bush is a liar ( to justify Clinton) by his "If they send me a bill, I'll sign it.".
Hillary won NY using soft money from out of state. Lazzio tried to get her to sign off on soft money, the very thing she accused Lazzio of using for his campaign, but she refused to do it.
When the Democrats changed the bill in the dark of night, they put the ability to take union dues back in , just in case Bush does sign it.
I don't think the politicians re-read the bill after the democrats snuck the accept union money part back into the bill.
The sneeky Democrats changed that bill horrably. When it hits Bushs' desk, if it does, it will be nothing like the original bill he read before.

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. ..LOL!

HELLO! ANYBODY HOME?!!...

Are you in complete denial? The bill couldn't pass without Republicans voting for it.

he was a loyal American who had the guts to exercize his veto powers

Q: Who vetoed fewer bills per time in office than any other 20th century president except Harding, despite having the opposing party control both houses of congress for 6 of his 8 years?

A: William Jefferson Clinton

Reason: No balls (lucky for us)

You have put your finger on the central reason why Shays-Meehan is dead meat, in the Senate, by a presidential veto, or by action of the Supreme Court, if worst comes to worst.
Many years ago, I was on the Board of a national health charity. We were having an annual meeting in Las Vegas, when the Reagon Administration floated the idea of changing or eliminating the deduction for charitable contributions.
The Chairman of the Board wanted us to organize a letter-writing campaign against that idea, since it would obviously cripple our efforts on behalf of the Kidney Foundation, the Lung Association, etc. I pointed out that any proposal which had the undying opposition of both the NRA and Harvard University, was going nowhere.
The same is true of Shays-Meehan, EVERY organization -- liberal, conservative and in between -- on EVERY issue that any group of Americans care about, is told to "sit down and shut up" 60 days before a general election, and 30 days before a primary.
It is a tribute to the stupidity of most Democrats, and the cowardice of a few Republicans, that such a provision is in the bill that passed the House. But because that provision slams EVERYONE in America who is interested in any issue, that makes the bill dead meat, one way or the other.
It will not stand as good law. The only question is how far down the road we must go before this law gets killed.

Congressman Billybob

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.