Posted on 03/20/2002 7:54:47 PM PST by Texasforever
The noise level in the forum needs to abate so issues can be discussed on their merits and not deliberate misrepresentation of this President’s, motives, decisions and conservative credentials. The decisions Bush has made on the immigration reform act and the CFR are not the same decisions I would have made but they are principled decisions not based on polls or focus groups. For those of you that hold principle as your standard I would think that would be a plus in your assessment but I guess when your ox is being gored, the presence of principle is not as important an attribute as you claim.
I see the same misrepresentation of Bush’s positions on the CFR as I saw on the IRA. The charges are being thrown right and left that he “lied” to us as a candidate when he said he opposed campaign finance reform and is now doing a “read my lips” part two. When the thread that called for a “freep” of the President was posted a few days ago I said I was willing to do so because I don’t like CFR any more than the rest of you but I also asked the author of the thread if anyone had done a comparison to the bill that is now passed with Bush’s positions during the campaign. I was told that was a good idea and that such a comparison would be forthcoming. I waited until last night and nothing was done so I went looking on my own and found Bush’s plan after getting the nomination and 90% of what he wanted and advocated is in the new bill, He has not reneged on a campaign promise he let all of us know his position well in advance, I have attached that plan along with the applicable sections in the CFR that was passed today. It would be nice if Bush had the line-item veto so he could excise the bad parts but he does not and will rely on the courts to do it for him.
I have no illusions that this will sway any of the newly “disaffected” Bush supporters but to those of you that actually wish to criticize in a rational manner, I hope this helps.
Summary of Governor Bush's Campaign Finance Proposal
On February 15, 2000, Texas governor George W. Bush, the eventual winner of the Republican Party's presidential nomination, outlined a campaign finance reform proposal that he claimed would "increase citizen participation, return honor to our system, and restore confidence in our democracy." The proposal consists of a package of reforms that include a partial ban on soft money donations, an increase in individual contribution limits to candidates, restrictions on labor union political activities, a ban on the solicitation of contributions from federally registered lobbyists while Congress is in session, and disclosure of contributions on the Internet. The primary objective of these reforms is to protect the rights of individual citizens and groups to make contributions to political campaigns and otherwise express their views in the political process. The reforms also seek to preserve the integrity of the political process by placing new restrictions on contributions, and requiring full and timely disclosure of campaign contributions.
back to top Restricting Soft Money and "Paycheck Protection"
The Bush proposal calls for a partial ban on soft money contributions to political parties. It would prohibit corporate and labor union soft money donations, but would continue to allow individual soft money contributions. In recent election cycles, more than two-thirds of the soft money raised by the national party organizations came from corporate and labor union funds, so the proposed change would have a significant effect in reducing the amount of soft money raised at the national level. The Governor's plan thus calls for more stringent regulation of soft money than the proposals advanced by Republican leaders in recent congresses, but it is less comprehensive than the total ban on soft money donations included in the McCain-Feingold and Shays-Meehan bills. Covered in SEC. 101. SOFT MONEY OF POLITICAL PARTIES.
The plan also restricts the monies used by labor unions for political activities by incorporating a "paycheck protection" provision that would grant union members a right to decide whether a portion of their dues would be used for political purposes. In this way it seeks to promote the principle that all monies used in federal political campaigns should be voluntarily contributed. Bush's proposal thus reaches beyond the provisions of McCain-Feingold or other similar reform packages, which recognize the right of non-union members to consent to the use of their dues for political purposes, by extending this practice to union members as well. A "paycheck protection" provision of this kind has been advocated by Republican leaders in recent congresses, but is generally considered a "poison pill" guaranteeing the defeat of any reform plan by Democrats. Moreover, unlike the "paycheck protection" proposal drafted by Senate Republicans Jim Jeffords and Olympia Snowe in the 105th Congress, the Bush proposal includes no comparable provision offering corporate shareholders an opportunity to consent to the use of corporate treasury funds for political purposes. Covered in SEC. 203. PROHIBITION OF CORPORATE AND LABOR DISBURSEMENTS FOR ELECTIONEERING
Bush had already taken care of the paycheck protection problem his first month in office with the following Executive order
Four executive orders were issued by President Bush on February 17, 2001, which the Administration stated "are based on the principles of fair and open competition, neutrality in government contracting, effective and efficient use of tax dollars and the legal right of workers to be notified of how their dues may be used." Reacting to the reports, AFL – CIO President John Swenney issued a statement saying he was "appalled and outraged" by the decision to issue "four mean-spirited, anti-worker executive orders." One order would require government contractors to notify employees of their rights under the U.S. Supreme Court's 1988 holding in Communications Workers v. Beck, 487 U.S. 735, "affirming the right of workers to be notified and object, if they so chose, to their union dues being used for purposes other than collective bargaining." Government contractors will be required to post notices informing union–represented workers of their rights under the Beck decision. A similar Executive order was signed in 1992 by the President's father, which was rescinded in early 1993 by former President Clinton.
back to top Preserving Individual Participation
In addition to allowing individual soft money contributions, the Bush plan seeks to preserve the First Amendment rights of individuals to participate in the financing of campaigns by other means. The proposal calls for an increase in the amount an individual may contribute to a federal candidate by adjusting the current limit for inflation, which would raise the current limit of $1,000 per election to approximately $3,300 per election. Covered inSEC. 211. DEFINITION OF INDEPENDENT EXPENDITURE and SEC. 307. MODIFICATION OF CONTRIBUTION LIMITS. All individual and independent limits raised.
Furthermore, Bush would place no restrictions on issue advocacy; rather, his plan affirms the right of individuals and groups to run issue advocacy advertisements without being subject to federal regulation. Covered under SEC. 201. DISCLOSURE OF ELECTIONEERING COMMUNICATIONS. And `(B) EXCEPTIONS- The term `electioneering communication' does not include—
ii) a communication which constitutes an expenditure or an independent expenditure under this Act;
back to top Eliminating "Rollover" Transfers
Governor Bush also wants to preserve "donor choice" by eliminating the ability of federal candidates to transfer or "roll over" excess campaign funds from a prior bid for federal office to a subsequent campaign for a different federal office. Current law allows a federal candidate to transfer an unlimited amount raised for one federal campaign to another; for example, a senator running for president can transfer any amount of excess campaign money from a previous senate race to a presidential campaign fund. The Bush plan would end this practice to ensure that monies raised from donors who support a candidate for one office are not used to finance a subsequent campaign that donors may not support.
back to top Limiting the Solicitation of Contributions from Lobbyists
One reform offered by Bush that has not been included in the campaign finance legislation that has reached the floor in recent sessions of Congress is a prohibition on the solicitation of contributions during legislative sessions. Under Bush's proposal, Members of Congress would be prohibited from soliciting or accepting campaign contributions from federally registered lobbyists while Congress is in session. In other words, members will only be allowed to solicit or accept gifts from these individuals when Congress is in recess. The purpose of this provision is to safeguard the legislative process from improper conduct or actions that create an appearance of impropriety. It is modeled on similar provisions that have been adopted in some states, including Texas, which prohibits campaign contributions during the legislative session.
back to top Improving Disclosure
During the presidential prenomination period, the Bush campaign has been posting donor information on the campaign's Internet site on a weekly basis. This practice would become a requirement of federal law under the Bush proposal in an effort to make information on campaign donors available to the electorate in a more timely manner. The Governor's plan would amend current law on disclosure and electronic filing to require candidates to disclose on the Internet all campaign contributions within one week of their receipt. Under current FEC rules, candidates for the presidential nomination file quarterly reports during the off-election year and monthly reports during the election year Covered in TITLE V--ADDITIONAL DISCLOSURE PROVISIONS
No I believe in a constitutional republic that has built into it a last firewall against those that violate the constitution. That is why the Federal judiciary is independent and not subject to the political climate of the moment. You are asking for an imperial presidency and it can never be allowed to happen. Bush understands that and that is why he is fighting the GAO suit that congress filed. But he is doing it within the courts. Yes the make-up of the courts can result in bad decisions but that does not mean the philosophy OR the institution is not vital to our form of government The USSC only hears cases based on one issue and one issue only. Is the law being challenged constitutional. It has worked for a long time and I am not ready to scrap it.
Oh, I'm sure that with sufficient repetition, the message will get through.
There has been so much Bush-bashing here lately, that several times I thought I had gone to DU by mistake.
I don't like the loopholes in 245(i) that apparently allows illegals who snuck across the border to jump through a few hoops and become legalized. Neither do I agree with that part of CFR that limits free speech, but I do agree that it would be a waste of political capital to veto what the SC will surely over-ride.
If Bush vetoes CFR, the democrats will have a hey-day with claims that Bush was anti-CFR, and the general population of voters will never know that the only reason he vetoed it was because it violated free speech -- not after the Dems and the liberal media get through with their PR.
To all those who claim to be 'former Bush supporters', but are now ready to jump ship, I have to ask if perhaps you weren't the RINO, who used the excuse of two, albeit, major issues to put Hillary or Gore or Daschle at the helm.
I never expected to have a president whose policies I was in total agreement with. Plus, I have to allow that we are not privy to all the intricacies of politics and how each issue must be weighed from all sides. So I am willing to allow him a bit of slack and even allow him to make mistakes, because I never expected him to be perfect.
Please keep my son in mind when you next vote, for he is in the military, and Thank God our current administration strives to keep our men and women out of harms way as we fight this ongoing battle against terrorists around the world. I have no faith that a Dem administration would have the same care of our men and women in uniform. (Actually, they showed what they thought of the military during Clinton's eight years, followed by the military vote farce in Florida.)
You missed the Revolution by two hundred years. No wonder you're confused.
Of course he's not the arbiter. He's an arbiter. Equally with the other two branches of government.
The ONLY IMPORTANT fact is that he is knowingly signing a Bill into law that is unconstitutional.I guess we don't really need the judiciary then, since the president decides the Constitutionality of passed legislation. Absurd.
He certainly has a hell of a lot to say however, based on his plan as a candidate he likes most of this bill. He knows this is the first time a CFR bill has reached the desk of a republican that actually favors them. He is also convinced as is congress that the supreme court will overturn the issue ad ban.
If the Supreme Court believes it has that power they should be impeached and removed immediately
Whether they, or YOU like it or not, this nation was NOT set up as a parlimantary type of government. Fringers only has sway in a parlimentary government. Ergo, staying home / voting for a lost cause, insures that GOPers ( or in the case of Nader, the Dems ) lose needed votes.If I am oh so wrong ( which I am NOT ! ) , pray tell me, what did votes for Harry Browne, get the Libertarians, when President Bush was elected ? NOTHING ; that's what !
No, they are umpires. Every law ever passed has someone claiming it is unconstitutional. The fact is, EVERY law is constitutional once passed and signed and survives court challenge. That is what our founders put into place and why the had the good sense to install a non-elected branch of government to handle.
The other 90% has some good provisions like raising the hard money limit, narrowing soft money to local/states, and barring corperate and union soft money. Let's not forget, once this is law, the dims are going to have to abide by it -- my bet is that they don't because it is in Hillary and Terry's blood. When they fail to live up to the bill, then it'll be open court season on the DNC. This is called giving the dims enough rope to hang themselves. The fact that Republicans are better equipped to raise hard money is the icing on the cake.
As for all the squawkers before they look at the facts, I have come to expect them like migrating birds that make noise a few days then fly away.
FWIW, I think our President is very smart, and has surrounded himself with some brilliant people. I think I'll wait until I see the ending of all of this until I make my judgement.
Thanks, again.
Really? Are they a traffic court? Do they conduct jury trials? Just exactly what does the constitution say the USSC's function is?
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.