Path Cleared for Campaign Finance

Associated Press on Yahoo News ^ | 02/21/02 | Jim Abrams

[justanotherfreeper]

WASHINGTON - Prospects for final congressional passage of campaign finance legislation received a major boost Thursday when Sen. Gordon Smith, R-Ore., indicated he would oppose any filibuster by opponents.

Smith's comments appeared to give supporters of the bill the 60 votes they need to overcome any stalling tactics on the measure that is designed to limit the influence of money in politics.

The bill passed the House last week and Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle, D-S.D., has said he hopes to win quick passage when the Senate reconvenes next week.

Smith's spokesman, Joe Sheffo, said the senator was "strongly inclined" to vote for a motion to end delaying tactics and bring the bill to a conclusion although he would still oppose the legislation when it comes to a final vote.

Smith's position is that there should be a debate so that "at the end of the day no one is going to be able to say they didn't hear both sides," Sheffo said.

The Senate's leading opponent of campaign finance legislation, Sen. Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., has not said whether he will attempt a filibuster or use other parliamentary tactics to block the bill.

Smith, a first-term senator, is up for re-election this fall and faces a competitive race against Oregon's secretary of state, Bill Bradbury.

The House last week passed far-reaching campaign finance legislation that would end the system in which corporations and unions pour hundreds of millions of dollars in unregulated "soft money" into the national political parties. It would also ban the use of soft money to finance the broadcasting of issue ads, often thinly veiled means to attack or endorse a candidate, in the final 30 days of a primary or 60 days before a general election.

The Senate, led by Sens. John McCain, R-Ariz., and Russ Feingold, D-Wis., passed a similar bill by a 59-41 vote last April. Daschle has said it is his hope that the Senate can approve the House bill without change, avoiding the possibility of the legislation getting stalled in a House-Senate conference, and send it directly to the president.

President Bush has not committed himself on the legislation. He joined congressional Republicans in trying to stop its passage but his senior advisers have indicated that he will sign it.

"That's very good news," Daschle's spokeswoman, Ranit Schmelzer, said of Smith's probable opposition to a filibuster. "The magic number is 60, and as long as they don't flip any Republicans, we're there."

Among the 59 senators — 47 Democrats and 12 Republicans — who voted for the bill last April, Sen. Ted Stevens, R-Alaska, has indicated that he has changed his position and now opposes the legislation. But Smith would join one other senator, Democrat Ernest Hollings of South Carolina, who voted against the bill last year but now says he is ready to stop a filibuster.

If the filibuster is avoided, it would require only 51 votes to pass the bill and send it to the president.

[CedarDave]

In Oregon these days any Republican is automatically a RINO given the leftist leaning of a majority of the populace. Now he is also a spineless RINO (or this that redundant).

[concerned about politics]

Just moments ago, I received a donation solicitation phone call from the Florida Republican party. I told the young feller that I'm withholding any monetary support till the outcome of CFR is known.

Good, because we have no idea how this whole thing may turn out. Bush may make us all proud. Again, maybe not. Who knows?

[Molly Pitcher]

You did the right thing.

I got a national RNC solicitation in the mail this afternoon.

It's ready to go right back with the same message on it as you gave.

Plus I called the RNC at the beginning of the week.

[Molly Pitcher]

Index

[jgrubbs]

The Party split along time ago, it's evident by the number of GOP members who support Shays-Mehann, are pro-choice, pro department of education, etc.

Today's GOP is not the same GOP it was in Reagan's day, and I have lost any hope that it will ever return to it's conservative principles.

[Cincinatus]

I suggest that you make your thoughts on CFR and future donations known to these guys:

Republican National Committee
310 First Street, SE
Washington, DC 20003
Phone: 202.863.8500
Fax: 202.863.8820
E-mail: info@rnc.org

[LavaDog]

It would also ban the use of soft money to finance the broadcasting of issue ads, often thinly veiled means to attack or endorse a candidate, in the final 30 days of a primary or 60 days before a general election.

Now there's some unbiased reporting for ya!

[NEPA]

I agree with you. I thought the reality was that conservatives probably have a better shot at reform through the GOP than through a 3rd party. I have my doubts now however after the republicans controlled Congress for so long with iffy results.

I've voted 3rd party in the past but voted for GWB in 2000. If CFR passes and Bush doesn't veto I won't vote for him again.

I'm tired of voting for republicans just because they're not as bad as democrats. That just isn't good enough anymore.

[jayef]

Yeah, you're talking about Tauzin-Dingell. Another "deregulation" bill which really isn't deregulation. I work for a CLEC and let me tell you if they pass Tauzin-Dingell, it's all over for competition. They are trying to undo the Telecom Act of 1996. The most pernicious part of the bill is that the Incumbents will no longer have to unbundle their network to their competitors.

No choice for you!

The same Bells who didn't offer DSL until competition made them are now telling congress that they want to sell DSL to the world and promise to go rural (when for years they have been selling off rural properties).

Watch the FCC and watch Congress. I mean watch them close. Remember California. Deregulation is sometimes just a word.

[Magnum44]

If every TRUE conservative in America would stop blindly supporting the GOP, and lend support to a party that requires their candidates to be REAL conservatives, like the Constitution Party we could make a difference,...

Yes and we could also be like Italy and have a government of a whole lot of whiner parties and no majority. There is an up side to the two party system. Compare ours to any other multi-party system in the world. Show me one that has stability in government and gets anything done.

[VRWC_minion]

I wonder how many conservatives in Connecticut blindly voted for Shays just because he was a Republican.

In CT, Shays is just about as conservative a crop as is possible to grow in our liberal rich soil.

[VRWC_minion]

If every TRUE conservative in America would stop blindly supporting the GOP

Hate to be the one to break the news to you but conservatives are not the majority in the land. We cannot elect anyone much farther to the right than the population is in general. A politician cannot change the minds and attitudes of the populace by much. In fact if he doesn't mirror it pretty closely, his term is limited.

[oldvike]

Sen. Gordon Smith, you sir are a piece of sh*t! And if Bush signs this bill then he is no better than Sen. Smith.

[Phlap]

When Bush signs this drivel(which will never pass a SCOTUS challenge anyway) and declares the end of "big money" influnce the dumb dems will have lost yet another issue.

And they thought Ronnie and Bubba were political. They ain't got nothin on Dubau.

[1 FELLOW FREEPER]

So the last aging whore, Gordon Smith, rolls over. Oh well he has his big fat pension and all the perks that go with it.Constitution be damned.

[Schrader36]

It doesn't look good. These are grim days. However, I believe it will go down, one way or another. If not, we have a good reason to have all who supported it removed. Bush better break out that veto pen. If not, he has to go to. I hate to say it. All, spread the word to friends, family, neighbors, co-workers, and hell, tell the dead too, it might persuade some of them to quit voting democrat.

[jgrubbs]

America is not a two party system, too many people think we are. If we were, then there would have never been a Republican Party, it was a third party at one time.

America has many different parties and I think the parties need to make sure that the candidates that claim to be a representative of that party need to abide by the parties platform, if they can't they need to find a new party.

The GOP will let anyone be a part of it, and run as a Republican, I bet Al Gore could run on the GOP ticket if he wanted to. They don't care what your principles are.

I support the Constitution Party because they require their candidates to support the parties platform, you have to be a TRUE conservative to be on the Constitution Party ticket. It's a guessing game with anyone on the GOP ticket.

[VRWC_minion]

I wouldn't hold my breath. When I get called by GOP, my first question is "Is Trent Lott still the majority/minority leader ?" The normal answer is Trent who ?