"A Betrayal" - Some advice for Bush on campaign-finance reform legislation.

The National Review ^ | February 20, 2002 | National Review Editors

[rightwing2]

“A Betrayal”
Some advice for Bush on campaign-finance reform legislation.
By NR Editors
From the March 11, 2002, issue of National Review

President Bush is reportedly about to commit a cynical and opportunistic act unworthy of his young presidency: signing a disaster of a campaign-finance-reform bill. The bill, as it seems likely to emerge from Congress, is perfect veto bait for Bush: 1) He thinks it is unconstitutional; 2) it violates the principles for reform that he defended during his campaign and enunciated during last year's legislative debate; and 3) it will discourage exactly the sort of engaged citizenry that Bush devotes so much rhetoric to promoting. But Bush seems ready to ignore all of this and instead heed his own narrow political and financial interests, in a capitulation that will require double-backing on his commitments.

The bill, of course, eliminates the unlimited corporate "soft money" donations to political parties, which are supposed to be especially corrupting. But reformers never bother to explain how it is possible for both parties to be corrupted by soft money, when they advocate diametrically opposed positions on most issues. The implication is that the Republican party's conservatism is bought and paid for, and so is the Democratic party's liberalism. This is a pinched and cynical — not to mention false — way to view the world.

The parties are huge, sprawling national organizations pulled every which way by competing special interests. This is exactly the way politics is supposed to work. The same applies to the legislative and regulatory realms. Almost every victory that Enron — the proximate cause of this latest legislation — won in Washington came by prevailing over some other special interest. The Chicago Board of Trade opposed an Enron-supported regulatory exemption for derivatives trading. The utilities opposed Enron's vision of electricity deregulation.

There's nothing wrong with this, unless you consider petitioning the government and contributing to candidates and parties somehow inherently corrupting, as many reformers do. They talk of the current legislation as a prelude to further efforts to chase private money from politics. As a mere prelude, it is appalling enough. The soft-money ban would make the national political parties poorer, and diminish their influence. The parties would have less money for advertising, voter-registration drives, direct-mail pieces, and so on. More important, they would have less money for supporting challengers, who don't yet have the fund-raising clout of incumbents. The current bill is suspiciously full of such provisions helpful to incumbents.

One of the most notorious would prevent citizens' groups funded with unlimited soft-money donations from running ads mentioning an officeholder by name 30 days before a primary or 60 days before a general election. This would force smaller advocacy organizations either to go silent during these periods, or go to the expense and trouble of registering as PACs funded only by limited hard-money donations. (Remember when PACs were the reformers' bogeymen? That seems long ago.) In general, a web of new rules for fundraising, advertising, and "coordination" with candidates would tie outside political groups in knots, limiting their flexibility and ultimately their expression.

The optimistic view of all this is that money will inevitably find a way into the system, and so it will. In a free country, it takes more than one sprawling campaign-finance bill to suppress political speech effectively. But every layer of complexity, every new rule requiring the expertise of a campaign-finance lawyer to negotiate, raises the entry fee to politics. It makes it harder for ordinary citizens to get involved, and makes politics more of a game for experts and insiders, who on the Republican side are urging Bush to sign the bill even as they work to invent ways around it.

It is dismaying that Bush has come to this pass. Depending on how closely you want to read his March 2001 letter on campaign finance, the current bill violates any number of the principles he set out for reform. Bush supported a soft-money ban. On the other hand, he wrote that any bill "should help political parties more fully engage citizens in the political process." This bill does no such thing. He wrote that the bill should "protect the rights of citizen groups to engage in issue advocacy." This is exactly the sort of advocacy the bill would hamstring. He wrote that reform shouldn't favor "incumbents over challengers." This bill does. He wrote that it should include provisions protecting shareholders and union members from having their money spent on politics against their wishes. This bill doesn't.

Bush did not fight for one — not one — of these principles during the debate. He, of course, has a war to run. But perhaps he could have taken some time away from, say, touting the "USA Freedom Corps" to try to influence a substantial reworking of the nation's election system, especially one that raises troubling constitutional questions. Even supporters of the bill admit that parts of it are of dubious constitutionality. In an extraordinary abdication of his responsibilities under the Constitution, however, the president will probably sign the bill in part because the courts can be expected to find elements of it unconstitutional. This is why his aides think signing it is so clever — Bush gets the credit for going along, while the bill is sent straight into constitutional limbo.

The expectation that chunks of the bill will be thrown out is probably, although not necessarily, accurate. The soft-money ban is arguably unconstitutional, although the Supreme Court has repeatedly said large contributions can be corrupting. It seems likelier that the 60-day restriction will be judged unconstitutional. And the same goes for the broad and vague provisions defining "coordination" between candidates and outside groups, which kick in a host of other regulations. The Supreme Court has previously made it clear that such restrictions on political speech — the right at the core of the First Amendment — must be extremely narrow and clear-cut. The idea has traditionally been to carve out a broad, easily understood safe harbor for political speech, which is exactly what the campaign-finance bill intends to undercut. But, all that said, there is no guarantee of how the Court will vote, especially given that the closest questions will probably be decided by that weather-vane justice, Sandra Day O'Connor.

All the more reason for Bush not to pass the buck to the Court. But Bush clearly figures he doesn't need what would play in the media as another Enron-related political headache. Meanwhile, he can raise more hard money — the limits for which are doubled by the bill — than any other presidential candidate, so why should he put himself out over the general fortunes of the Republican party, let alone the Democratic party? Finally, his aides are sometimes reported to think that signing the bill would rob John McCain of his signature issue and any chance of mounting an independent bid in 2004. But no one outside the most devoted McCainiacs thinks such a scenario is plausible. The fact is that the public has little interest in campaign-finance reform. Bush would pay little or no political price for giving it the veto it so richly deserves, and asking Congress to send him another version that, at the very least, is clearly constitutional.

But Bush seems likely to listen to the smart set, instead of what one assumes would be his better instincts. Conservatives were forewarned that, for instance, Bush's education policy might not be much to their liking. He had promised as much for two years. His support for an over-regulatory campaign-finance reform would be something different, not just a disappointment, but a betrayal.

[4CJ]

Some areas are black and white - plainly enumerated in our Constitution - like free speech. Others are gray and subject to differing opinions. I can tolerate the latter, but not the former.

[cynicom]

Laz....

I supported and voted for Bush. I think his foreign policy is excellent, however his domestic agenda is rotting from inside out. In my mind he is doing little for the party, not wanting to spend his high public ratings. Yet in 04, he will be wanting us to all line up and support him, without question. That support is eroding now, best he take a look at it.

[clintonh8r]

W stands up to Saddam and bin Laden but is scared by Tiny Tommy and L'il Dick. Sickening and saddening.

[ForGod'sSake]

If he signs this bill, I will not vote for him in 2004.

Keep your stylus handy. "W" will NOT allow this unconstitutional POS to stand! Count on it.

FGS

[justanotherfreeper]

Bush lobbyists have confirmed he WILL, repeat, WILL sign. This was at the retreat for GOP Chief of Staffs yesterday, and the White House is very very candidate with these folks at these kinds of events. Read the last two paragraphs and weep: Stevens Balks at Reform (Bush will sign CFR)

Could someone post that article seperately in News? I have been trying and every time I get the article set up and hit preview, the "can't find server" page comes up, I don't know what I'm doing wrong.

[Protect the Bill of Rights]

I do not follow the President blindly into the sunset. I respect him, I trust him, I disagree with him on many issues. He plays his cards close to his vest. Even now, I tend to underestimate him.....simply because he does hold those cards tight.

I have to trust him to do what he thinks is the right thing to do. I admit, I will be crushed if he signs a bill that is so blatantly un-Constitutional in that it limits a private citizen's right to political dissent during the most crucial time of all----prior to elections.

Shays-Meehan has stripped away our means of exposing the difference between what an incumbent says & what he does during this crucial time. If an incumbent is afraid to run on his record, he knows his record serves someone other than his constituents. His record should be able to stand up to public scrutiny.

I will continue my own personal lobbying with my Senators and the White House & pray that the Constitution will prevail on principle and not because SCOTUS had to make Congress follow the Constitution.

If the GOP and the President are willing to gamble on what SCOTUS would rule, perhaps it is time for Americans to leave the GOP en masse and donate time, money, effort & VOTES to the Constitutional Party.

I, too, fear what could happen in legislation during that 60 day time period. Someone tried to point out that is unlikely, because Congress is usually in recess during that time so they can campaign. I would point out that water flows through cracks, bears sh!!t in the woods, and Congress exploits unintended consequences. Jeffords waited until after he was elected as a member of the GOP to switch....I call it fraud. Dems called it "brave." I have no doubt those 60 days will be used to slip things through.

BTW, if they are so concerned about the corrupting influence of money in politics, why are they whoring for money now with the orgies of fund raisers scheduled before now & November? Both Bill & Hillary are going to be the starring whores for the dems. Bill at the Apollo in Harlem. Just a little hypocritical, I would think.

[Cincinatus' Wife]

It looks like Mitch McConnell and George W. Bush are tag-teaming the LIBERALS!

GOP Greases Skids to Sink Campaign Finance Bill

[Excerpt] 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." [End Excerpt]

[lideric]

This is definately a win-win situation for the Democrat party. If Bush vetos this bill the press will destroy his credibility

I think if Bush veto's this it's a win for him. The RATS in congress & the press will howl but W's poll numbers will still be in the 80's, especially when we start kicking a$$ over in Iraq.

[DJ88]

"President Bush is reportedly about to commit a cynical and opportunistic act unworthy of his young presidency..."

This is all pure speculation on EVERYONE'S part. Until he gets this on his desk and does NOT veto it, then I say "phuey" to what these "sources" have been reporting now for weeks...we saw what happened with the stem cell research, and he surprised us all. He's a lot smarter than some of us are willing to give him credit for, and I for one will not abandon ship until he actually DOES something.

[backhoe]

Silence, America!:

Silence, America!: for Silence, America!. 

Other Bump Lists at: Free Republic Bump List Register

---

A further Mini-Editorial!

Folks, these clowns, corrupters, and frauds in Congress are trying to silence YOU!

Wake up, dammit!

Rush and Hannity and all the hosts in the world can inveigh against this garbage day and night, but unless you actually do something about it, it will not matter one tiny iota!

Now is the time! If not now, when? When they arrest your wife or kids for "improper speech?"

Get off your butts and send some emails and faxes. Write letters, especially letters to editors.

Call talk shows- the local ones are easy to get on and reach a lot more people than you may realize.

This- right here, this "issue"- is where the rubber meets the road...

There are over 70,000 members here, and I know each of you knows at least two or three more people you can tell about this-- so do it! Now!

And tell them to tell 2 more people, and tell them to "pass this on to 2 more..."

The right to speak freely is as fundamental to a free society as the right to defend yourself against unprovoked attack. This is a frontal assault on your liberty and the freedom of your children and spouse.

It's time to move out, folks- march, or die....

---

Here's a Note to Activists:

Want to do something? Go here:

Ignorance Making You Ill? Cure It!

for links, tools, & instructions about how to contact a pile of different people, and how to send a link to this story right here ( or anywhere else ) to a "mass email" using Outlook Express.

---

I say again, people- it's time to speak up- or be forever silenced!

[Lazamataz]

Gimme a break. Presidential races are always a choice between relative good, you can never get anyone that precisely matches your perspective.

Give ME a break. The first two amendments I do not make 'relative good' decisions on. Mr. Bush, you are either with us, or you are against us.

[Protagoras]

Now THAT's a principled shoot-yourself-in-the-face-to-spite-your-ass conservative for you. pretty good.

So you will vote for someone who repeals the first amendment to avoid,,,,,what?

[Lazamataz]

This is all pure speculation on EVERYONE'S part. Until he gets this on his desk and does NOT veto it, then I say "phuey" to what these "sources" have been reporting now for weeks...we saw what happened with the stem cell research, and he surprised us all. He's a lot smarter than some of us are willing to give him credit for, and I for one will not abandon ship until he actually DOES something.

Oh, I absolutely agree! He may outfox them all!

But I am giving him fair warning, and I think my one opinion may reflect hundreds of thousands of people out there.

The last election was decided by around 500 votes. I'm not sure he can afford several hundred thousand abstentions.

[Lazamataz]

So you will vote for someone who repeals the first amendment to avoid,,,,,what?

Someone who repeals it harder? ;^)

[Lazamataz]

It looks like Mitch McConnell and George W. Bush are tag-teaming the LIBERALS!

I hope you are right.

[DJ88]

I understand...it's just that all these "reports" from "aides" disturb me, Laz. We do know that Dubya doesn't "leak" anything...so who is doing it? That's what I want to know. ;-)

[Valin]

I really hope you are correct. This thing is bad on so many levels. It's bad for anyone (of whatever political stripe), NO ONE gives a damn or even knows about it outside of the beltway or with politcal junkies(and very few support it).
for the life of me I don't understand why the president is even concidering signing this(note: if he is).

[clintonh8r]

The president doesn't seem to understand that a veto will not hurt him. People who are adamently for CFR oppose him on other issues also, so signing the bill will not get their vote, and Joe Lunchbucket couldn't care less about CFR one way or the other. So VETOING the bill is a win-win for W. Why can't he see that?

[swampfox98]

I hope the aides of Bush are spreading dis-information by saying today he intends to sign the bill. We'll see.

[Cincinatus' Wife]

Bump!