It is bad enough that the self-appointed political reformers finally succeeded in passing their First Amendment-eviscerating Shays-Meehan campaign-finance "reform" legislation. But it is downright inexcusable that President Bush, residing in a White House that is overflowing with political capital, cannot muster the courage to veto a bill he genuinely believes is unconstitutional. The president will be violating what he has personally conveyed are his convictions about the First Amendment when he signs into law, as he has said he will, the blatant attack on free speech that Shays-Meehan represents.
It isn't even a close call. Until recently, Mr. Bush had compiled a solid track record of defending First Amendment freedoms against those who want to silence Americans seeking to exercise them. Appearing on ABC News' "This Week" on Jan. 23, 2000, Mr. Bush was asked by columnist George Will if a president "has a duty to make an independent judgment of what is and is not constitutional, and veto bills that, in his judgment, he thinks are unconstitutional." Mr. Bush briefly, but emphatically, replied, "I do." Mr. Will then asked Mr. Bush if, on those grounds, he would veto the Shays-Meehan bill, which, contrary to Mr. Bush's views on constitutionally protected freedoms, would have banned soft-money contributions by individuals. Mr. Bush replied, "[Y]es, I would."
Mr. Will, noting that the U.S. Supreme Court had previously struck down the congressionally mandated limits on political expenditures but not those on contributions, then quoted Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, who has stated, "There is no constitutionally significant difference between campaign contributions and expenditures. Both forms of speech are central to the First Amendment." Asked if he agreed with Justice Thomas' position and if he would appoint like-minded justices to the Supreme Court, Mr. Bush replied, "Yeah, I agree with that."
On March 15, 2001 — less than two months after Mr. Bush's inauguration and just before the Senate was to consider campaign-finance "reform" legislation sponsored by Sen. John McCain — the president sent a letter to the Senate majority leader outlining the type of reform the White House would support. One important requirement was "paycheck protection." As Mr. Bush had earlier explained to Mr. Will, that would require that a union member be "able to make his or her expression known as to whether or not they want their money spent on a political campaign or an idea." But this was anathema to Democrats, who demanded that their party continue to have unfettered access to union treasuries as the price of their support for "reform." Thus, all 50 Senate Democrats voted against the proposal, which, by the way, also would have required corporations to get permission from shareholders before using certain funds for political expenditures. Another of Mr. Bush's reform principles required "protecting the rights of citizen groups to engage in issue advocacy." In fact, Shays-Meehan drastically curbs this fundamental right during the very period it matters most:60 days before a general election and 30 days before a primary.
By signing Shays-Meehan, Mr. Bush will violate an important campaign commitment and stomp all over his own stated constitutional principles. And he will be complicit in shredding the First Amendment. For shame, Mr. President, for shame. . . .
Let's try one more time to insert the facts. The WT either did not know or did not care about the following EO that Bush issued in his first month in office
Four executive orders were issued by President Bush on February 17, 2001, which the Administration stated "are based on the principles of fair and open competition, neutrality in government contracting, effective and efficient use of tax dollars and the legal right of workers to be notified of how their dues may be used." Reacting to the reports, AFL – CIO President John Swenney issued a statement saying he was "appalled and outraged" by the decision to issue "four mean-spirited, anti-worker executive orders."
One order would require government contractors to notify employees of their rights under the U.S. Supreme Court's 1988 holding in Communications Workers v. Beck, 487 U.S. 735, "affirming the right of workers to be notified and object, if they so chose, to their union dues being used for purposes other than collective bargaining." Government contractors will be required to post notices informing union–represented workers of their rights under the Beck decision. A similar Executive order was signed in 1992 by the President's father, which was rescinded in early 1993 by former President Clinton.
Let's consider this: We're in an election year. 60 Senators voted for it. He can't veto it without suffering a political setback when his own party members help override the veto(and you know Dasshole will bring it to a re-vote immediately to make Bush look bad.) Bush prefaced his tacit approval with reservations. Very smart. "I'm for reforming the ridiculous laws that we now have, but there are some Constitutional questions." He doesn't get beat up by the press, Dasshole or McCain; who would be living on the Sunday morning shows. Bush takes an arrow out of their quiver. He knows Diana Ross will thump it on appeal(after the next election cycle) and it will be a mute point anyway. Remember, everybody loved the Line item veto passage, but the Supremes kicked it back. "Oh well, we tried" and the outrage died a quick death.
This issue was so low on the radar screen of voter interest that it didn't make sense to veto it and create a media frenzied faceoff with Dasshole and McCain for an inevitable Congressional loss for Bush. There is a method to Bush's supposed madness. November is fast approaching, and this bill doesn't affect this election cycle. Also, remember, the objective is Republican majorities in both houses after November. If Bush can gain seats,(rare, if ever done); highly likely, he's much stronger politically.
For whatever reason (avoiding predictable attacks in close re-elections for Republicans), too many in his own party voted for this bill; negating his veto power. Don't pick a fight you can't win. Pretend you're cautiously for the concept, but with reservations. Disarm your combatant. It's a win-win for Bush. He appears to squintedly defer to the Senate's wisdom, and looks like a substantative thinker who warned all along that there were problems with the bill.
Dasshole will continue his Tylenol drip and McCain will self-destruct on Larry King.
Also, think about this; If Bush vetoes the bill, McCain has an excuse to jump ship to the "Independant" Party...one more seat to try to pick up this November. The press would immediately break away from regular programming to "Condit-ize" the event. McCain would get massive media exposure, and Bush would be labeled as "in the pocket" of big business (Enron revisited). That would be the spin.
Bush is smart on this one. The current court already thumped this issue 2 years ago. It'll be a repeat. He knows that.