Petition for veto of Shays-Meehan / McCain - Feingold

P8riot

[P8riot]

I have just initiated a petition for the president to veto Shays-Meehan / McCain - Feingold.

Go here to add your signature.

[nicmarlo]

Let's pass Jeff Head's petition!

That's a tall order, lol. Jeff's petition is now at: 288,396 and P8riot's is now at: 1,229 But one can only try, so BTTT.

[village idiot]

"Americans who do not support campaign finance reform are corrupt themselves...."

.....hmmm.....kind of a blank statement there. Does the content of proposed reform matter at all?

[putupon]

Save the Constitution bump.

[TaRaRaBoomDeAyGoreLostToday!]

GOP Greases Skids to Sink Campaign Finance Bill
By Jeff Johnson
CNSNews.com Congressional Bureau Chief
February 20, 2002

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.

[TaRaRaBoomDeAyGoreLostToday!]

Federal Election Commissioner Says Shays-Meehan Privacy Concerns Justified

By Jeff Johnson
CNSNews.com Congressional Bureau Chief
February 18, 2002

Capitol Hill (CNSNews.com) - At least one member of the Federal Election Commission (FEC) acknowledges that public disclosure requirements under the Shays-Meehan campaign finance bill passed by the House Thursday could lead to retaliation against people who give money to issue advocacy groups.

As CNSNews.com previously reported, members of some such groups have expressed anxiety about having their names published in FEC contribution reports, fearing retaliation from employers, merchants, and even family members.

"Disclosure is very troubling for somebody who's vulnerable to an employer, or contract grantor, or government agency that singles out people for retaliation because they got themselves on a 'politically incorrect' list," warned Larry Pratt, executive director of Gun Owners of America (GOA).

"Once that person is known to be 'politically incorrect,' by whoever's definition, they can be targeted," Pratt said.

The applicable provision of the Shays-Meehan bill would require an advocacy group to disclose donations by any individual totaling more than $200 during any election cycle if any of the money was used to purchase advertising that mentioned a federal candidate by name.

Chuck Levin, a member of the board of AARP, agrees that it would be wrong for anyone to feel intimidated about giving to a group they support.

"If I have a point of view on something and I'm willing to put some money into it, within reasonable limits," Levin told CNSNews.com, "then it seems to me that that's my issue and I'm entitled to do it without fear of retribution."

But Levin questions the need to fear having one's name on an FEC contribution report.

"I think that's an over-reaction, frankly," he said. "There's probably a list of who knows how many hundreds of people, the likelihood of some employer doing that, sitting down and going over that list is almost zero."

That was the case, for most of the FEC's history.

"When you had to go in and look at them on paper that was true," according to Federal Election Commissioner Darryl Wold. "And the disclosure process was limited to its intended purpose, which was to find out a candidate's sources of support."

Wold says the advent of the Internet and the ability to file FEC reports electronically has changed that forever.

"Now you can flip it around and determine who an individual has been contributing to," he noted.

In fact, just three clicks of a computer mouse into the FEC website yields the link to conduct a search for contributions by donor name.

CNSNews.com conducted name searches for prominent Republican political consultant Mary Matalin and Democratic consultant James Carville, who are married to each other. Records of Matalin's $3,450 in contributions during the 2000 election cycle were retrieved in less than a second. So was Carville's 2000 contribution record of $5,000. Both records listed the employer of the donor and their home zip code, along with the final recipients of their contributions.

Wold says the risks for misuse of the data are many.

"There's a potential for use of that, say, by an employer who wants to get a political profile on a job applicant, a parent who wants to get a political profile of his or her child's teachers," he cautioned. "It could be used anytime you want to find out the political preferences of an individual measured by how much money they have contributed."

The expanded reporting requirements under Shays-Meehan, Wold adds, would only increase the potential for abuse.

"When you add together the increased number of databases under various state reporting regimes, and now contributors to [issue advocacy groups], it's going to be possible for somebody to develop a political profile of any individual who makes a significant number of contributions to candidates and causes," he concluded. "I think the privacy interests that people have are of great concern and this would exacerbate those concerns."E-mail a news tip to Jeff Johnson.

Send a Letter to the Editor about this article.

[Brownie74]

Done!! There are almost 1300 signatures now. Thanks for the ping.

[mafree]

Thanks for the flag- I signed it.

[airborne]

Proud to be signer # 1362.

BTW, how can you call me corrupt when you don't even know me? Are you a knee-jerk kind of person on all issues, or just your average dumbocrat liberal?

[airborne]

Pato Purific- Non-member since today!(good riddance)

[Faith]

Keep this bumped, folks. Thanks.

[jwalsh07]

I prefer to do business in an open forum and I've gotta tell you, I think you should get your money back. Your opinion that elected officials should pass unconstitutional laws and hope and pray for the judiciary to correct the error of their ways is sad. Do you teach your students that the buck stops way over there?

[undergroundwarrior]

I was one of the first to sign the petition. Thought numbers would be higher at this time.

Perhaps, a new thread should be started?

[jwalsh07]

Wrong again. According to the Chairman of the FEC, there are elements of the bill that are clearly unconstitutional. I read it, I read Buckley and I read the first amendment and even I can see that there are clearly unconstitutional aspects to this crap.

In fact the proponents are so thouroughly convinced of that, they refused to pass an amendment vowing not to put anything unconstitutional in the bill. If thats not evidence of what the facts are, nothing is.

You, of all people, should understand that duty trumps politics. That you don't and considering the position you hold, I am not terribly confident in what the future holds for America.

[ditto h]

Just call me 1474.

[hattend]

"Disclosure is very troubling for somebody who's vulnerable to an employer, or contract grantor, or government agency that singles out people for retaliation because they got themselves on a 'politically incorrect' list," warned Larry Pratt, executive director of Gun Owners of America (GOA).

"Once that person is known to be 'politically incorrect,' by whoever's definition, they can be targeted," Pratt said.

I can see Larry's point on this but I think the only reform needed is full disclosure of political contributions. I want to know who has the most potential influence over my representative.

BTTT (#311 WIMom)

[spunkets]

BuMp for a great big veto and the Bush's acknowledgement of the 1st Amendment.

[Tolerance Sucks Rocks]

1651 Signatures Total

THAT'S PATHETIC! LET'S GET THIS BALL ROLLING!

LET'S ROLL!

[TigersEye]

Signed and bumped!

[Nitro]

Done and done!!

[Nitro]

Previously pinged and petitioned!!