Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: toenail

Congress approves sweeping campaign finance overhaul, ending years of delay, gridlock
DAVID ESPO, AP Special Correspondent
Wednesday, March 20, 2002
©2002 Associated Press

URL: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/news/archive/2002/03/20/national1649EST0782.DTL

(03-20) 13:49 PST WASHINGTON (AP) --  Congress approved the most sweeping changes to the nation's campaign finance system since the Watergate scandals on Wednesday, ending years of gridlock and clearing the bill for President Bush's signature. Critics promised a swift court challenge.

Final passage came on a 60-40 Senate vote, a relatively comfortable margin that belied previous combat on a measure designed to reduce the role of special interest money in politics.

The House passed the bill last month on a vote of 240-189. Bush is expected to sign the legislation, although White House officials have not said so explicitly.

"With the stroke of the president's pen, we will eliminate hundreds of millions of dollars of unregulated soft money that has caused Americans to question the integrity of their elected representatives," said Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., whose dogged pursuit of the issue helped fuel his rise to national prominence.

"The status quo is not acceptable and today it will end," added Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle, D-S.D.

After years of delay, Republican opponents offered congratulations to the bill's supporters -- and said they would see them in court.

"I am consoled by the obvious fact that the courts do not defer to the Congress on matters of the Constitution," said Sen. Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., the measure's most prominent Senate critic.

"We have allowed a few powerful editorial pages to prod us into infringing the First Amendment rights of everyone but them," he said, contending the measure would prove detrimental to the political parties.

The centerpiece of the bill is a ban on unlimited "soft money" donations to the national political parties, typically five- and six-figure donations made by corporations, unions and individuals.

State and local parties could accept up to $10,000 a year in soft money per donor for voter registration and other party-building affecting federal candidates.

Another key provision would ban the use of soft money to buy "issue ads" within 60 days of an election or 30 days of a primary. These ads are customarily purchased by political parties or outside groups. And while they stop short of expressly advocating the victory or defeat of a candidate, they often are harshly critical.

Individuals would be permitted to donate up to $2,000 to presidential or congressional candidates, a doubling of the present $1,000 limit.

The changes will take effect on Nov. 6, meaning the parties can continue to raise hundreds of millions of dollars in soft money to support candidates in this fall's mid-term elections.

The Senate's vote capped a decade of struggle on the issue.

In 1992 President George H.W. Bush vetoed legislation written by a Democratic-controlled Congress to provide partial public financing for candidates who agreed to limit spending.

In 1994 the House and Senate both passed legislation but couldn't agree on a compromise.

McCain teamed with Sen. Russell Feingold, D-Wis., beginning in 1995 to try again, joined in the House by Reps. Christopher Shays, R-Conn., and Martin Meehan, D-Mass.

The House passed Shays-Meehan bills twice in the late 1990s over the objections of GOP leaders. But McCain and Feingold were stymied by multiple Republican-led filibusters in the Senate.

That changed after the 2000 elections, when Democrats gained Senate seats, and McCain returned from his presidential campaign with enhanced political standing.

With Daschle playing a key role, the Senate passed a version of the legislation last year. The effort nearly blew up in the House last summer in a procedural fight, but supporters forced the bill back onto the floor last month, and prevailed.

While gridlock persisted on Congress, scandals followed one after the other in politics.

Feingold detailed them in his remarks before a final vote -- the White House coffees and the Lincoln Bedroom sleepovers of the Clinton years; former Vice President Al Gore's visit to the Buddhist temple; revelations that the Chinese military had tried to influence American domestic politics.

Add to that the collapse of Enron, the energy trading company whose top officials were political donors, and even critics said McCain, Feingold, Shays and Meehan had the momentum they needed to prevail.

"I think we have a chance to address this constant scandal-waiting-to-happen," said Sen. Fred Thompson, R-Tenn., shortly before the final vote. "We are making headway I think to do something to reduce the cynicism in this country."

But Sen. Phil Gramm, R-Texas, eagerly lent support to the opponents.

"This bill is blatantly unconstitutional," he said, referring to limitations placed on certain types of donations. The measure is "anti-democratic," as well, he said, and will concentrate power "in fewer and fewer and fewer hands."

In one White House meeting in advance of the vote, senior advisers briefly discussed whether to stage a signing ceremony. They reluctantly decided that Bush had no other choice, according to two participants who spoke on condition of anonymity.

The president has been lukewarm about the bill, which is opposed by most senior GOP officials, but has chosen not to spend the political capital needed to fight it.

(My comment, this is a stain on the US Constitution)

24 posted on 03/20/2002 12:59:57 PM PST by Oldeconomybuyer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: Oldeconomybuyer
The president has been lukewarm about the bill, which is opposed by most senior GOP officials, but has chosen not to spend the political capital needed to fight it.

The media will crucify him after he signs it. The Democrats will sweep the Republicans because the base will see Bush as gutless and the Democrats will say that although he signed the bill, he is working against it anyway.

Play both sides; get hit on both sides.

Read my lips.......

35 posted on 03/20/2002 1:03:27 PM PST by AppyPappy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies ]

To: Oldeconomybuyer
(My comment, this is a stain on the US Constitution)

Truly, it is a shame that unscrupulous Enron executives will no longer be able to donate millions of units of free speech to our corrupt politicians.
36 posted on 03/20/2002 1:03:34 PM PST by Belial
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies ]

To: 1rudeboy;A.J.Armitage;aruanan;BillyBoy;celeste aida;cfrels;chicagolady;Christopher...
Well, they did it.

Shall we just hope that Bush has the balls to veto it? Or should we plan on helping him "get the balls" by showing our support on a "street-corner-near-you"???

38 posted on 03/20/2002 1:04:31 PM PST by RedWing9
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies ]

To: Oldeconomybuyer
I hadn't realized Fred Thompson was on board... Oh, well -- good riddance.
39 posted on 03/20/2002 1:04:38 PM PST by Sloth
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies ]

To: Oldeconomybuyer
What's the procedure on the lawsuit....can they apply to thje Supremes to take the case directly......I know there's a procedure to do that......
40 posted on 03/20/2002 1:04:56 PM PST by ken5050
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies ]

To: Oldeconomybuyer
In one White House meeting in advance of the vote, senior advisers briefly discussed whether to stage a signing ceremony. They reluctantly decided that Bush had no other choice, according to two participants who spoke on condition of anonymity.

Which Senator or Congressman is going to lead the court challenges to this bill?

52 posted on 03/20/2002 1:06:33 PM PST by rface
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies ]

To: Oldeconomybuyer
But Sen. Phil Gramm, R-Texas, eagerly lent support to the opponents.

"This bill is blatantly unconstitutional," he said, referring to limitations placed on certain types of donations. The measure is "anti-democratic," as well, he said, and will concentrate power "in fewer and fewer and fewer hands."


Thank heaven Gramm at least has good sense.
95 posted on 03/20/2002 1:22:04 PM PST by Xenalyte
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies ]

To: Oldeconomybuyer
I can't even read about this without violent nausea attacks occuring.

Can we do a class action lawsuit for abrogating the Constitutional guarantee of Free Speech????? And, I don't mean Judicial Watch.

111 posted on 03/20/2002 1:28:27 PM PST by Freedom'sWorthIt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies ]

To: Oldeconomybuyer
I guess now the Chinese won't try to influence our elections because it's illegal.
169 posted on 03/20/2002 2:15:25 PM PST by TheErnFormerlyKnownAsBig
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies ]

To: Oldeconomybuyer
With the stroke of the president's pen, we will eliminate hundreds of millions of dollars of unregulated soft money that has caused Americans to question the integrity of their elected representatives

...not to mention the First Amendment - all with the stroke of the President's pen!

172 posted on 03/20/2002 2:18:40 PM PST by CalConservative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies ]

To: Oldeconomybuyer
From your posted article:

"With the stroke of the president's pen, we will eliminate hundreds of millions of dollars of unregulated soft money that has caused Americans to question the integrity of their elected representatives," said Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., whose dogged pursuit of the issue helped fuel his rise to national prominence."

WWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW

What Johnny really said,

" With the stroke of the pen, it will be the law of the land..( McCainiac laugh..hehehehe..)....and we will eliminate hundreds of years of freedom of speech. Why, because we must. For the good of the country. Money is corrupt..and corrupts us..because we cannot help...er I mean we cannot let soft money rot our souls...er no, I mean soft money is evil."

said Johnny McCainmutiny RINO, AZ. who looked around the room..like he'd seen the ghost of Benedict Arnold.

192 posted on 03/20/2002 2:40:22 PM PST by Osage Orange
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies ]

To: Oldeconomybuyer
It is not a stain on either the Constitution or the Democrats who don't give a whit about the Constitution or any other law so long as everyone but Democrats is forced to comply.
298 posted on 03/20/2002 4:58:56 PM PST by B. A. Conservative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies ]

To: Oldeconomybuyer
This AP story actually made me physically sick.
299 posted on 03/20/2002 5:00:12 PM PST by firebrand
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson