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

Skip to comments.

Statement by the President: "... I will sign (CFR) into law."
Office of the Press Secretary ^ | March 20, 2002 | George W. Bush

Posted on 03/20/2002 4:33:41 PM PST by erk

The White House, President George W. Bush

For Immediate Release
Office of the Press Secretary
March 20, 2002

Statement by the President

Like many Republicans and Democrats in the Congress, I support common-sense reforms to end abuses in our campaign finance system.  The reforms passed today, while flawed in some areas, still improve the current system overall, and I will sign them into law.

The legislation makes some important progress on the timeliness of disclosure, individual contribution limits, and banning soft money from corporations and labor unions, but it does present some legitimate constitutional questions.  I continue to believe the best reform is full and timely disclosure of campaign contributions.

###


Return to this article at:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/03/20020320-21.html


TOPICS: News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: bush; cfr; cfrlist; silenceamerica
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 81-100101-120121-140 ... 581 next last
To: mlo
This is all about politics, for both sides.

As for myself I would much rather that the President take an "unpopular" stand, based on Contitutional PRINCIPLES and not brush it off on someone else (SCOTUS)

David

101 posted on 03/20/2002 5:14:21 PM PST by davidosborne
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: BonnieJ
He is Pres. of all of us and compromise is the only way he can realistically govern.

So what you are saying is that it's okay to compromise and vote away rights given to us in our Constitution. You do know that's what you're saying right?
102 posted on 03/20/2002 5:14:35 PM PST by Registered
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 89 | View Replies]

To: jurisdog
Actually, my view is "which part of 'no law' does Congrees not understand???" i think any regulation of speech via regulation of campaign limits is offensive ... but it is clear the unconstitutional part of this that has me and others hot around the collar is the provision that limits independent groups ability to speak out if it affects elections, within 60 days of election day.

It is also clear that the politicians in Congress are quite *fond* of the idea of limiting outside group spending, since it generally attacks *incumbents*. So this is an incumbent protection bill.

103 posted on 03/20/2002 5:14:40 PM PST by WOSG
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 78 | View Replies]

To: erk
I was already fed up with the state and local GOP. Now I'm fed up with the national party too. War or no war, I'm sorry, he just lost my vote. Maybe it's time to move along to the New York State Conservative Party.
104 posted on 03/20/2002 5:14:52 PM PST by firebrand
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: erk
I guess I'm just surprised at how many of us (I throw myself in here) actually believed W was different.

He's first and foremost a politician. He has given some of the best speeches I've ever heard a president give after 9/11... but deep down he's no different (nor can he afford to be) than the presidents, congress-critters, senators, and other politicans before him.

Politics is about money and power...to think anything differently is foolhardy.
105 posted on 03/20/2002 5:15:11 PM PST by birbear
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TrappedInLiberalHell
He also goes on record as being a President who swore to uphold the constitution but will now swear at the constitution.
106 posted on 03/20/2002 5:15:24 PM PST by RamsNo1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: sinkspur
I'm not gonna do a "Perot" again, that's for sure.

At least he threw us a teeny bone with the "some legitimate constitutional questions" part of the statement.

107 posted on 03/20/2002 5:15:41 PM PST by dittomom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 84 | View Replies]

To: ALL
Everyone who would prefer that Algore were President right now, please raise your hand.

And all who would sleep more soundly on 1/20/05 with either Hitlery or Algore in the White House, please raise your hands.

Does anyone think that Algore wouldn't have done this sooner, with no plan of action in mind? And don't even talk to me about one-percenters.

No, I am not happy about this at all. Yes, I am very frustrated. But the fat lady hasn't sung yet.

108 posted on 03/20/2002 5:15:47 PM PST by kayak
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 87 | View Replies]

To: dittomom
I haven't decided how mad I am about this yet...

I immediately called Domenici's office and spelled my name, said I was registered Republican, in the state since 1972, this was the most disappointed I'd ever been with the senator and slammed the phone down so hard pieces of it flew. Put it back together, called our former congressman and unsuccessful 2000 senate candidate and kept my heart from jumping out of my chest and roaring along the phone wires to get his take. He said this way Tristani can't use the vote against him in the fall. I carefully put the phone up and erased any memory of an entire party.

There's a party that starts with R--but I just can't--dyslexia, Alzheimer's, FReementia deliria, for the life of me I just can't remember the name of that party.

I'll wrap a copy of the Constitution around a brick just in case I do.

109 posted on 03/20/2002 5:16:29 PM PST by PhilDragoo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: VRWC_minion
He can choose to announce he won't enforce the parts he believes are not constitutional.

That's not good enough. He loses, mclame wins.

110 posted on 03/20/2002 5:16:47 PM PST by mombonn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 92 | View Replies]

To: Congressman Billybob;erk
The SCOTUS should never have to rule on legislation that, on its face, is unconstitutional. How soon before they will they rule? Way longer than I can hold my breath (or my water).

I wont suddenly become a Bush-basher because of this, and hope y'all wont either. But it sure changes the way I'll look at our president.

111 posted on 03/20/2002 5:16:51 PM PST by Don Carlos
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: rwfromkansas
Kids 17 and under should NOT be allowed to support candidates with money.....they are not self-sufficient, and it's a perfect way for family members to funnel money to candidates. Besides, they cannot even sign most contracts, etc....unless they are emancipated.....then maybe....but as long as ma and pa are paying the bills....NO WAY!
112 posted on 03/20/2002 5:16:52 PM PST by goodnesswins
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 88 | View Replies]

To: rwfromkansas
This bill bans the right of people 17 and younger to send political contributions, even small ones.

So have your Dad send it. He can send twice as much.

Why should you be allowed to send money if you can't vote?

113 posted on 03/20/2002 5:17:29 PM PST by sinkspur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 88 | View Replies]

To: erk
The reforms passed today, while flawed in some areas, still improve the current system overall, and I will sign them into law.

Like saying a cyanide-loaded roast beef sandwich is pretty good nutritionally while flawed in some areas.
114 posted on 03/20/2002 5:17:52 PM PST by aruanan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Congressman Billybob
I echo your post totally.
115 posted on 03/20/2002 5:17:57 PM PST by Terriergal
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: erk
THIS IS WRONG.
THIS IS WRONG.
THIS IS WRONG.
THIS IS WRONG.

116 posted on 03/20/2002 5:18:00 PM PST by Recovering_Democrat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Polonius
Violation of his oath of office. Does this rise to a level where impeachment is warranted??
117 posted on 03/20/2002 5:18:01 PM PST by CedarDave
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: erk
NOTE: from what I understand the Democrats stand to lose the most if CFR passes.....if I remember right, the Black Caucus was against it....
118 posted on 03/20/2002 5:19:01 PM PST by goodnesswins
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ken H
Someone is giving the President some very bad advice

...but the man doesn't have to take that bad advice and act on it.

119 posted on 03/20/2002 5:19:15 PM PST by NoControllingLegalAuthority
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: CedarDave
Then we would have to impeach 60 Senators and a flock of Congressmen right along with him.
120 posted on 03/20/2002 5:19:27 PM PST by dittomom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 117 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 81-100101-120121-140 ... 581 next last

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.

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