Campaign finance bill heads for Wednesday vote as Republicans give up

Associated Press ^ | 3-19-02 | JIM ABRAMS

[Oldeconomybuyer]

WASHINGTON (AP) --

[BeAChooser]

Has anyone else had about enough of that particular phrase?

Yes. I am sick and tired of the phrase which was first voiced by democRATS and has now been adopted by some of the staunchest defenders on this forum of anything Bush does. Well afterall, Bush is the CHIEF "move-on'er" ... certainly when it comes to even INVESTIGATING the MANY crimes the democRATS committed the last 9 years (not the least of which was ELECTION TAMPERING).

Curious thing about these folks, though ... they all RUN from a discussion of the facts implicating Clinton and the DNC. For example, ask them why is it that Bush and his DOJ have done NOTHING about the Riady non-refund? All you'll get is ignored. They'd rather complain about Hillary's looks.

Of course, even democRATS like to take jabs at Bill and Hill's looks nowadays. Makes them seem "reasonable". But ignoring SERIOUS crimes? That doesn't sound like conservatives, does it? It sounds more like democRATS. So either they are democRATS, which may be the case in some instances ... or they are something worse ... a NEW BREED of republican who are no different than democRATS when it comes to BLINDLY supporting their party and in NOT upholding laws for "perceived" political gain.

The ONLY campaign finance reform we need is to investigate and prosecute those who SUCCESSFULLY stole the 1996 Presidential election using ILLEGAL money ... LOTS AND LOTS OF IT ... from foreign sources ... most notably the COMMUNIST Chinese. And here is a case (the Riady non-refund) where CLEARLY someone(s) associated with the Clintons and DNC violated serious laws. Yet ... Bush, Ashcroft and the GOP have done NOTHING about it. Here is a case that should be simple to prove ... because, by law, there has to be a paper trail ... but Bush, Ashcroft and the GOP have just IGNORED IT.

It is time to ask yourself why. It would appear that Bush/Ashcroft WANT the democRATS to get away with introducing MILLIONS of dollars in ILLEGAL money from Communist sources into the election process. And having got away with it once, does ANYONE think they won't do it again? Does anyone wonder whether Republicans have or may be planning to do the SAME THING?

And it restricts, in the final 30 days of a primary or 60 days of a general election, those broadcast "issue ads" aimed at supporting or attacking a candidate.

But here may be the WORST part of this legislation ... a blatant attempt to keep those who are in power, in power ... by restricting our 1st Amendment rights. I wonder if forums like FreeRepublic are next in their sights.

Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle also said Tuesday that negotiators were near agreement on legislation to improve the voting system in the wake of the disputed 2000 presidential election.

Oh Sure. More likely it is legislatioin to make it easier to tamper with the outcome of elections. That way, Freepers and conservatives, won't have any doors to pound on like they did in Florida, when they helped save Bush's bacon.

[Feiny]

Sadly, that has never stopped them before...

[Congressman Billybob]

I am privy to some inside information which I am not at liberty to discuss until after this bill reaches the President's desk and he decides what to do with it. However, if he calls a press conference to announce his decision, and the only people who are present with him at that time are Attorney General Ashcroft and Solicitor General Olson, then pay close attention to what is about to happen.

The action taken then and there by President Bush will be something that every President has had the power to do from the beginning, but no President has ever done before, He will deal with this bill in a way no other bill has ever been dealt with. And I think that the members of FreeRepublic will be satisfied with the result.

Do not ask questions for more details because I cannot give them. Suffice to say that the proposed plan of action for that moment, if that is Bush's choice, has passed my eyes.

As the Archangel Micheal (John Travolta) in Michael says, when asked "How do you know that?" he replies, "I pay attention."

Congressman Billybob

New column: "The Truman Factor."

[GiovannaNicoletta]

I know what you're saying. I will just sit it out. It would be so hurtful and such a betrayal for President Bush to sign this legislation that I could not bring myself to pull the lever for him. I can't imagine that a man of integrity such as Bush would so cavalierly disregard his oath of office.

There is no cacophony of support for this bill. There is no excuse whatsoever for the President to sign it. No excuse.

Having said that, I am still holding out in the hope that Bush will veto it. I am not a single issue voter, but if the man we put into office because of his honesty and decency will so easily sign away our Constitutional rights, then I can't support him.

[BJClinton]

If they know it is unconstitutional,

The Supreme Court will vet it's constitutionality, that's its' job.

This is just politics; if there is successful opposition to CFR from Republicans, the Democrats and their presstitutes will crucify them for supporting the "sell-out of politics to big corporations like Enron". That line will sell this election year. It stinks, but it's business as usual. We have fights we can win legislatively, like Bushes new tax deferral and small-business medical relief, that will put us back on the offensive.

[oldtimer]

We know that the rats control the Senate, and there are a couple of RINO Senators which is the balance of power.

We need to keep this in mind, and I dearly hope GWB Vetoes it.

I am sick of him playing go along to get along if he signs the bill. He needs to tell the rats and RINO's to go pound sand.

[Wagonmaster]

I'm with you.

[VRWC_minion]

Can you say "pocket veto" (in the side pocket )?

Were coming up on a recess aren't we ? This GOP "give up" looks more like a co-ordinated set up for a pocket veto.

[cva66snipe]

Well who is to blame here? Who had the choice to either elect those who would follow the Constitution or elect those who were so called electable but not so honorable congressmen and senators. I see only one part of this Bill being Constitutional which is banning corporate high dollar donations. No self respecting canidate should be enslaved to them. Nowhere is "We the Corporation" in the Constitution. Rights are stated to individuals and states. I find myself at odds with my own congressman on this issue.

How about some voter imposed term limits anyone? Nah we don't need a law for it the choice is ours. Think about it next time congressman or Senator RINO is up for re-election. How vote ye? For the Constitution or for the GOP? If you want constitutional government it must be demanded and not excused. In other words do not re-elect them for the party win then complain when they do what? Sell you out! Because when you re-elect them You say yourself that principle is not important and Party is KING.

[MamaLucci]

The ONLY campaign finance reform we need is to investigate and prosecute those who SUCCESSFULLY stole the 1996 Presidential election using ILLEGAL money ... LOTS AND LOTS OF IT ... from foreign sources ... most notably the COMMUNIST Chinese.

This is SO true.
Democrats have already demonstrated that they are willing to break campaign finance laws,
and Republicans have demonstrated that they will let them get away with it!

[BJClinton]

There would probably be very little. But, why not avoid it altogether?

There's an additional bonus: soft money favors Democrats and hard money favors Republicans. They're doubling hard money and 'eliminating' soft money.

The part of this legislation that pisses me off, and I believe infringes on the 1st Amendment, is the 30/60 day ad ban. This will get struck down in the Supreme Court.

[GiovannaNicoletta]

Thank you for that, Congressman Billybob. I believe you and what you wrote has given me encouragement and hope.

I will take your advice and wait and give the President the benefit of the doubt that he deserves. This bill is so frighteningly Marxist, it's hard to imagine him signing it, notwithstanding what has been in the media.

[VRWC_minion]

Pocket veto because its unconstitutional and call special session or enact most of bill by regulations ? My first thought was how much of these changes could be made by regulation. I never thought of calling a special session before.

[concerned about politics]

I trust Bush to do the right thing.
There's a lot of libertarians ( and probably undercover DUs') here that would love to take votes away from Republicans, and get them for the losing libertarian party, wasting and splitting the party the vote.
I refuse to condemn President Bush until I see the outcome. Many have bitched about Bush before, but Bush showed them what it's like to be in the smarter lane.

[Pharmer]

Bush ain't gonna veto. He sees signing the bill as a win win. The courts will knock off the most egregious stuff, he THINKS he negates McCain and he KNOWS the public, who don't know or care, reaction to his signing will be a net positive.

I share your disappointment!

But I would add that I can see an air of pragmatism for signing this. A) The bill, as publicly percieved, cuts both ways. That why they don't care about it. B) Although the constitution manadates the President the authority to veto unconstitutional legislation, few Presidents ever use it. Presidents often will sign "popular" legislation knowing that there are provision that are blatantly unconstitutional. The line item veto, demanded by every president since Lincoln and signed into law by Clinton is one such law. Clinton used only once or twice before the courts struck it down. I don't think you will see such legislation enacted any time soon. The reasons for this is because the public rarely attributes the executive branch the political clout to interpret the consitution. Rememeber to the Dems and Inds, Bush is an idiot with no experience in government. He may be a good war leader but since when does he know about the constitution?? And if he does veto it, McCain will just bring it up again and again until someone signs it. Bush may just be doing us (and himself) a favor by getting this signed into law and letting the courts have at it. If the courts strike this down as a blattant violation of the 1st ammendment, as I hope they do, this is a dead issue. And McCain will have to hang his hat on something else to be noticed by the media.

So far, Bush has been very smart in dealing with the dems. He has probably concluded that frontal assault on "well meaning, all inclusive liberals" is not fitting the "New tone". So instead, he laying seige, stealing their lifeblood issues (sometimes to our dismay), closing in, and picking the sentries off as they stick their heads up (Daschle does it all to often!!). He feels that this may be the only way to defeat them as they have become so entrenched inside the beltway. But as seiges take time we may have to be patient and be ready to tacticle retreats as they throw hot oil down the wall.

[Congressman Billybob]

The "pocket veto" occurs when the President has the bill in hand, duly passed by Congress, which then goes out of session for ten days, so the vetoed bill cannot be returned to them for consideration of an override. Both the House and Senate have dealt with this by adjourning "sine die" (literally "without setting a day") and leaving the authority to call both Houses back into session if required.

I don't think either the House or Senate will have left this back door open to a pocket veto at this time. Therefore, if President Bush simply does not sign the bill, it will become law without his signature. That has happened before. That is not what may happen now.

If what Bush does follows the plan that I have seen, it will be something never done before, and the White House press corps will stumble all over themselves trying to figure out what it means.

Another clue that something very unusual is afoot will be if the White House clues the media to bring their Supreme Court reporters into this press conference, They, unlike the usual suspects in Ari Fleischer conferences, probably will understand what is happening and report it correctly.

Suffice to say, I DO know how this plan would work, and will explain it on FreeRepublic minutes after it happens, but not until then.

Billybob

[concerned about politics]

You would have to go and do this, Billybob. You know it'll drive some of us nuts trying to figure it out. Thanks for the heads up - but - ARGGGG!

[rwfromkansas]

Call the WH and say Veto. If he signs this, I will write to the local paper the next day bringing back up his promises to vote against the bill. I will make sure people see this as "read my lips #2."

[rwfromkansas]

Perhaps Bush has stayed quiet to keep the congresscritters guessing what he would do.