Campaign finance bill heads for Wednesday vote as Republicans give up

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

[Oldeconomybuyer]

WASHINGTON (AP) --

[Valin]

I think the President is going to save us from this bill. I really do.

From your lips to gods ear.

[FreeReign]

I just happen to believe that "blind alligeance" to a "political party", is not necessary and in fact a "blank check" for that party to ignore their constituents.

I happen to believe that "blind allegiance" both for and against a party in counterproductive.

[FreeReign]

Yes, it's depressing that the Senate is in the hands of dishonorable Dems., but look what we do to our own, time after time without fail we fall for the leftist spin. We react to a headline, a planted story as predictably as rain in March....and in stead of turning on the authors of the bad bills, the stallers of energy and judicial nominees, the presstitutes who won't give our guys the mike...we turn on our own. Why would any Republican choose to serve in DC under these conditions? When has a journalist written an article with the headline, "Democrats give up?" It won't happen. We should be standing up against the vast left wing crime machine instead of continuously leaving our guys surrounded by enemies in DC...to let them know when we're angry at a bill, but not to threaten to leave and condemn the people for serving under hostile conditions. Why should they listen to anyone who calls to offer only condemnation? We are not the enemy. Anyone who claims we are is doing the Dems. bidding.

Most of what you are saying is true. However any "R" who votes for this cr*p needs to be shown the door -- in the primaries.

[FreeReign]

"It's a very fine moment," said Sen. John McCain...

What a putz!

[Dan from Michigan]

I've never donated to the national party, and I don't plan to. I MAY donate to the state party, but my GOP money right now goes to two places. MSU GOP, and Livingston County GOP(I may soon give to Ingham County too).

They don't have money to waste on stupid stuff. The farm club is what counts. Today's local official is tomorrow's state rep. Today's state rep is tomorow's state senator. Today's state senator is tomorrow's governor, congressman, or senator. Today's governor is tomorrow's president.

For other donations, I stick to individual campaigns, and I stick to MCRGO and MCRGO-PAC(I'm the treasurer of the PAC, so we don't waste money).

[Righty1]

Very apt.

[ao98]

See post 44 and 57. I hope he's right.

[RFP]

Something to do with this?:

OATH OF OFFICE--MEMBERS, RESIDENT COMMISSIONER, AND DELEGATES

The oath of office required by the sixth article of the Constitution of the United States, and as provided by section 2 of the act of May 13, 1884 (23 Stat. 22), to be administered to Members, Resident Commissioner, and Delegates of the House of Representatives, the text of which is carried in 5 U.S.C. 3331:

I, AB, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.

has been subscribed to in person and filed in duplicate with the Clerk of the House of Representatives by the following Members of the 107th Congress, pursuant to the provisions of 2 U.S.C. 25: ...

I predict President Bush will neither veto nor sign this bill, but instead call into question his Oath of Office and express a strong desire to make sure he upholds it. (REF YOUR COMMENT: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.) Thus, persuant to 2 U.S.C. 25, Bush will ask the Supreme Court to review this bill BEFORE he takes action. And as such:

• If CFR automatically becomes law within the ten day expiration period, it will have happened while being reviewed by the Supreme Court and not due to negligence or indecision on the part of the President.
• No one will be able to say Bush violated HIS Oath of Office by signing some trash bill which the USSC had later found unconstitutional.
• The RATS will be instantly disarmed of the weapon which they so need since Dubya will HAVE NOT vetoed CFR.
• The Supreme Court will remove all the unconstitutional crap from CFR leaving the Republican Party dealt the winning financial hand! "Be careful what you wish for." Hee hee hee.

BADDA BOOM, BADDA BANG !!!

[PFKEY]

I had the same thought myself but, have since reconsidered. It's not a matter of blocking or figuring out what if any stagegy Bush might have. They have painted themselves in a corner. Either direction, pass or not the Rats fail and look awfully bad in the process. I'm hoping!

[snopercod]

Good scenario, but what does that mean for the country when our president has to fool people into thinking he is doing the right thing?

BTW, I called the White House (PA comments office) two weeks ago urging the president to veto this atrocity. I told the voicemail machine that Bush would violate his oath of office if he signed it.

[Congressman Billybob]

Good thought, but not possible. About a century ago a President sought an advisory opinion from the Supreme Court on a serious constitutional issue. The Court turned him down flat, saying that the Constitution gives it authority over "cases and controversies" which does not include advisory opinions.

In short there cannot be, and will not be, any Supreme Court review until and unless Shays-Meehan becomes law, either because President Bush signs it, or as you suggest, allows it to become law without his signature by taking no action for ten days. I agree with you that immediate, preliminary review by the Supreme Court would be excellent, but I've read the cases in which that Court says it will not do that, on any issue, not just CFR.

What the President might do is more complex than that, but it heads in a similar direction.

Congressman Billybob

Latest column" "The Truman Factor."

[ImpBill]

Please don't mis-read my point. It is not that I am so much "against" Republicans. I was an active member of the party for 33 years. While not a Buchanan supporter by any stretch of imangination, I did finally come to understand his statement, "I didn't leave the party ... It left me."

The simple fact is that I have great admiration for my fellow conservatives that try to hold on to the faith that the GOP will continue to serve their basic beliefs and aspirations.

I simply came to a point that I could no longer support the party machine with the current crop of "leaders" and direction they have taken.

For those that still "toe the party line" and believe ... that is your choice and I, who have served to safeguard that right, would never suggest that you don't follow your own path. Good luck, I hope you prevail. While I may indeed still exercise my voting right by placing and "X" by GOP candidates, I will not support the "party" with money or activities until they (the party) by the action of their "office holders at the national level" more represent the basic ideology of fidelity to the Constitution and their principled action of following their "Oath's of Office" specifically.

Voting for, or even giving tacit approval to un-Constitutional bills is NOT what I view as faith and alligeance to the "Oath" to "protect and defend the Constitution".

God Bless you and God Bless America.

[IRtorqued]

it's not just jeffards it's all the pansy republiscams they could care less about you and the Constitution. they are just the other side of the coin they share with the demoncrats.

[GregoryFul]

I guess massive civil disobedience will be in order if these fatuous "lawmakers" pass this obviously unconstitutional bill.

[RFP]

What the President might do is more complex than that, but it heads in a similar direction

Hmmmm - Apply the Sherman Anti-Trust law to Congress? Click Here for the idea.

[hchutch]

Re-read Congressman Billybob's posts. I'm beginning to think Bush has got a plan to kill this crap PERMANENTLY, not just until a Democrat gets into office to sign the thing.

I think Bush has a plan that will make George Will happier than if there wasa veto. Trust the guy, will ya?

[supercat]

Nope. No elected official wants to be in the crosshairs come election time. This will be defeated in the Court so the 'Pubs hands are clean.

Anyone going against the bill should simply trot out the following:

• Mix a teaspoon of fine wine with a barrel of sewage, and you'll get a barrel of sewage.
• Mix a barrel of fine wine with a teaspoon of sewage, and you'll get a barrel of sewage.

Portions of this bill clearly qualify as "sewage". No matter what good stuff is in there (frankly there's not much) few reasonable people would deny that there isn't so much as a teaspoon of sewage as well.

[thucydides]

This kind of politics doesn't sit well with me either. But with Bush up against the Leninist democrats, the choice is either play hardball or die politically. Maybe what he will do is try a kind of line-item veto (see Congressman Billy Bob's post) on the unconstitutional stuff. In any case the courts will throw it out. I believe the democrats have gotten so corrupt and so unscrupulous that their present levels of political power are a grave threat to the constitutional order. They almost turned us into a banana republic in Florida. Many of us assume the inherent stability of our institutions, but this is based on reasonable acquiescence and moderation, qualities notably lacking in the scorched earth partisan power-at-any-price democrat party. So maybe we should be thinking about all this as a question of the lesser of two evils.

[supercat]

The ONLY campaign finance reform we need is to investigate and prosecute those who SUCCESSFULLY stole the 1996 Presidential election using ILLEGAL money ...

Dole was a loser. Had the Republicans focused on the House and Senate rather than wasting all their political capital trying to back someone who in many people's eyes represented many of the worst aspects of the Republican Party, they could have kept Clinton in check much better in the years 1997-2000. Unfortunately, Republicans are masters at snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.