Posted on 02/21/2002 6:22:01 AM PST by 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.
A smart President will hold on to his base.
Don't sign the repeal of the First Amendment, Mr. Bush.
Bump!
W ain't signed nothin' yet.
He ain't signed yet. I'm willing to believe he has some neat tricks left.
But if he signs it, he loses me and thousands upon thousands like me.
"...are urging Bush to sign the bill..."
"...the president will probably sign the bill..."
"...his aides think signing..."
"...his aides are sometimes reported to think that signing the bill..."
No where does it say Bush will or has signed the bill, but the left is doing everything in their power to make it 'appear' that this is a done deal.
(Checking calender for Election Day 2004 Sulking Party..... hmmm, no, the day looks free.)
(Checking undies, just in case.... hmmm, no, they seem quite dry.)
(Checking license for birthdate, just in case.... hmmm, no, I seem to be accorded legal adult status.)
W ain't signed nothin' yet.
True. But I am giving him fair warning of the results of such a signature.
We wouldn't have campaign finance reform on the table. We wouldn't have elections anyway.
We'd all be wearing Chinese uniforms and wearing turbins! Get a grip on yourself man !!
FWIW, I don't believe he's even considering the possibility. He's telling Pubbies on the hill, "Do what's right; don't even THINK about putting this monkey on my back!" He's calling their bluff, and raising a nickel. Really high stakes poker.
FGS
It is not. It is real bad medicene. Bad voodoo. Our Founding Fathers wrote a simple, easily understood First Amendment. They gave it A#1 status. For the men and women in Congress who violated the Constitution and their oath of office by voting to pass it, is bad enough. They all know it. They all know they aren't going to clean up their miserable acts of chicanery and are schemeing for ways to slither around the legislation already.
For our President to add his good name to it would be crushing to the faith and trust that I have placed in him as a an honorable man and respect as a sterling leader. But, somehow I think President Bush is A#1 hombre and will step up to the podium and shout a resounding "NO WAY will I allow Congress to stifle and muzzle the good citizens of this great nation free speech rights protected by the Constitution. Many of you in Congress are a bunch of idiots if you think I'm going to support this piece of stinking garbage. Now send me legislation that shows you have the courage to stop the corruption problems you speak of but never will I sign a bill that penalizes the citizens of this country for participating in the political process. I've given you the framework of which I can agree upon. Anything short of that or anything beyond that is DOA."
Bad law must be overturned by courage and candor. CFR makes me gag as much as it seeks to gag me as an actively aware citizen which is counter to what President George W. Bush said in his Inaugural Speech, January 20, 2001:
The same applies to those elected few in Congress who wish to repress our hope for freedom while doing all they can to to protect, defend, enhance and enrich their own careers and ambitions.
What I find interesting about this legislation that the penalties are severe for violation of CFR. Just as in Mrs. Clinton's hopes and dreams for overthrowing our freedom in selecting health care, her health care proposal contained heavy fines and severe consequences if a free citizen were to go against her dictates. The same with CFR. Why is it elected, and some unelected, officials can't wait to muzzle, imprison, levy fines, remove, confiscate, delete, eradicate, our rights, our property, our freedom, our Consitution? Do they seek to impose fear upon a free people? Will there be a time in our history that the American people will dread the midnight knock on the door by secret police because they dared speak out against a candidate for elected office?
Why are there no penalites for the elected men and women who willfully wantonly violate our Constitution?
I don't understand the schizophrenia of you folks. You advocate saving the GOP by vetoing a bill that was brought to you by the GOP!!!
I wish people would stop using the terms "republican" and "conservative" interchangeably. They are no longer the same.
Yes. Absolutely. They're in their castle hugging each other right now.
This is an overwhelmingly Democrat/Marxist bill. The propaganda and politics of personal destruction are strong.
Bush is not the enemy. The Democrats did this, and their propaganda is hitting the airwaves.
Remember who the REAL enemy is. Democrats and libertarians be damned.
Second guessing Bush always has turned out to be fruitless. He suprises us every time- to the dismay of those who wish to dehumanize him.
Could not have summarized it better. Niether the liberals or the ultra-conservative-won't-be-happy-till-Pat-Buchanan-is-President types have not let it sink in that Bush, like Reagan, has brought a team of serious, professional, experts into this administration. They know where they are going and how to get there without shooting themselves in the foot. As evidenced many times in the past year, they will hold their cards close to their chest, bluff if needed, and if necessary even appear to make tactical retreats in order to achieve the larger goal. This is high stakes poker and you don't win by holding every hand.
Personally, I don't think GW will let this bill get to him. If it does, he will not sign it. And if he did, he knows the USSC will void it. So I won't lose sleep over this.
.... and he would retain my vote.
If it does, he will not sign it.
.... and he would retain my vote.
And if he did, he knows the USSC will void it.
.... and he would lose my vote.
No he doesn't. The American people like Bush, and will vote for him anyway.
Most people could care less about this bill. Most have no idea what a bill is!
So what if Bush looses the few posting here. Libertarians don't vote Republican anyway, do they? DU disupters don't either.
I'm sticking with Bush. He's twisting the Democrats brains right now. He'll slam them with a last minute veto, and a great explanation.
THINK!!!
Bush has lost either way if CFR gets to his desk. Either he signs it and alienates conservatives and rabid FReeps -or- he vetoes it and gets crucified by the press. Congress MUST kill it if it is to be killed.
Now, if Bush needed weak-kneed GOP Congresscritters take the heat and kill the bill, would he run around reassuring everyone that he'd safely veto it if it gets to his desk??? OR would he HAVE to signal them that whatever they pass could become law?
Since this is still speculation, and I would hope that you would weigh your choices (including the impacts of not voting) at election time (not 2 years before), I won't judge your predisposition now.
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.