It sure is noisy in here!

March 20, 2002 | Texasforever

[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

[JDGreen123]

The world has turned upside down. Robert Byrd is defending the conservative position and Neocon FRepers attacking it. This must be the Twilight Zone.

From: The Federation for American Immigration Reform Legislative Update

Senator Byrd To Hold Up Section 245(i) In Senate

Senator Robert Byrd (D-WV) said he will delay passage of border-security legislation because of the Section 245(i) amnesty provision the House attached to it last week. In December, the first time the House passed the bill, Senator Byrd put a hold on the border-security legislation because he wanted the bill to be debated and to allow senators to add amendments to the bill.

The House last week approved the legislation by 275-137 - a single vote more than the two-thirds required by the procedural rules under which the bill was considered. Section 245(i) would restore a provision allowing illegal aliens to pay the INS $1000 and remain in the country, subject to only a cursory U.S. police record check, before receiving green cards.

Senator Byrd said of the Section 245(i) provision,"It is lunacy - sheer lunacy - that the president would request, and the House would pass, such an amnesty at this time. That point seems obvious to the American people, if not to the administration." Byrd continued, "Supporters of the House-passed extension of the so-called Section 245(i) provision were quick to claim that it is not an amnesty. The issue, they argue, is where you fill out your paper work--here or abroad. That is nonsense--N-O-N-S-E-N-S-E, nonsense. Section 245(i)--amnesty is amnesty--pure and simple."

The section 245(i) provision, which expired last April, allows undocumented immigrants to seek permanent residency without leaving the United States, if they pay a $1,000 fee and have a close relative or employer sponsor them. Without the provision, these immigrants would be forced to leave the country, and under tougher illegal immigration reforms passed in 1996, be barred from reentering for up to 10 years. If waiving tougher penalties for illegal aliens is not a form of amnesty, then I don't know what is.

Nonetheless, President Bush is insisting on passage into law of the amnesty provision before his meeting this week with Mexican President Vicente Fox. We will keep you updated on further developments.

Sensenbrenner Not Waiting For Administration On INS Reform

After the INS notified a Florida flight school that the two men who had piloted hijacked jetliners into the World Trade Center had been granted legal status to study in the United States, House Judiciary Committee Chairman James Sensenbrenner (R-WI) said he is through waiting for the Bush Administration to act and will move through his committee legislation that would split the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) into two separate agencies. Sensenbrenner said, "We have all been dumfounded. This fiasco is indicative of the enormous mismanagement at the INS."

Sensenbrenner is now encountering strong resistance from the Bush administration on how to reform the agency because President Bush opposes Sensenbrenner's legislative remedy. Bush said on March 13 that his INS Commissioner, James Ziglar, should be given time to fix the agency's problems. "His responsibility is to reform the INS. Let's give him time to do so," Bush said. So far, the only thing INS Chief James Ziglar has done is to announce that four high-level INS managers were shuffled into new positions Friday in the wake of the embarrassment.

In addition, one of the managers, Michael Cronin, who was acting executive associate commissioner and has been named the assistant commissioner for inspections, is still the Chairman of the Data Management Improvement Act of 2000 Taskforce which was created by Congress to implement the creation of an Entry-Exit border system to track visa overstayers. Even worse, moving Mr. Cronin to oversee inspections will allow Stuart Anderson, the agency's top official for planning and policy, to assert more influence over immigration programs. Ziglar appointed Anderson as one of a few political appointees, but Anderson is a libertarian crusader for higher immigration and weaker law enforcement.

Anderson, formerly of the Cato Institute and later Senator Spencer Abraham's immigration staffer, has described the very limited immigration law-enforcement response to Sept. 11 as "Gestapo tactics."

Sensenbrenner will mark up the bill (H.R. 3231) on April 10, after holding a hearing on the measure April 9. The legislation, which he introduced in November with Immigration and Claims Subcommittee Chairman George Gekas (R-PA) would create two agencies: one to handle immigration services, one to handle border enforcement. Sensenbrenner said he knows Ziglar "believes the reform can be handled administratively, but I know of no one in Congress that agrees with him."

[itsahoot]

As it is, whether they like it or not, they ARE giving aid and
comfort, now, to the likes of Kennedy, Clinton, Waters, and
everyone else we all revile .

Excuse me, but wasn't that the president chuming it up with
Kennedy the other day? Did Orin Hatch not say that Ted Kennedy
was his beast friend? Was Jim Jeffords not a registered
Republican?

You can call a cat a dog if you want to, but I doubt it will bark.

Far TOO many FREEPERS don't belong here.

And they are?

TheyYou have absolutely NO idea what
politics and governance Character entails.

[Texasforever]

Actually Congress can pass legislation that is not subject to review by the courts and has done so over 100 times. According to Bob "B1 Bomber" Dornan.

How about some examples please.

[backhoe]

You raise some good points.

[itsahoot]

Every law is not constitutional once passed, signed, and approved.

No, but it is enforcable law until ruled otherwise or repealed.

[dread78645]

bump for the morning

[Pistias]

See #149

[itsahoot]

Precedent is sacred in the courts.

Only recent precedent is sacred Tex.

[Texasforever]

Only recent precedent is sacred Tex.

Semantics. How about some examples of legislation off limits to judicial review. I am really curious about that one.

[rdb3]

Out in the real world, they are NOT as numerous. Their behavior, here, does NOT win friends and influence people. Quite the contrary ; they make enemies !

You're absolutely right. I've tried to tell several libertarians the same thing on these boards. "Fringers," as you call them, are more often than not poor, awful ambassadors for their beliefs and particular parties. You'd think that since they know that they don't have the numbers they'd change how they come across to attract more people, right?

Not so. I guess they just like throwing rocks from the penalty box.

Therefore, while they may be noisy, they're harmless. Unless, of course, you take away the example of the far Left. The far Left "fringers" totally hijacked the RAT party in '72. And look at the havoc they've created.

[itsahoot]

What makes you think I didn't understand that?

Silly me I must have miss read that part about it not being his
job to interpret law, just sign them.

[gratefulwharffratt]

You cannot reelect him without all of us on FR

70,000 votes, give or take a few??

And he has an 80% approval rating among REGISTERED VOTERS??

There might be medication that can help you with your delusions. Maybe.

Furthermore, before you start speaking for the whole "Unnamed Silent Majority," you might ought to take a good long look at these Bush Bashing threads. You and 50 or so other disrupting Single Wedge Issue 'voters' do not constitute 'all of us on FR.'

[Texasforever]

Silly me I must have miss read that part about it not being his job to interpret law, just sign them.

Do you or do you not have any examples of legislation that is immune to judicial review. Just one example will do. Thanks

[rdb3]

Robert Byrd is defending the conservative position and Neocon FRepers attacking it. This must be the Twilight Zone.

No, you're calling black white and white black. Yet you don't perceive that you are.

Ask yourself this most important question: Why is Sen. Klux Byrd holding up 245(i)?

Think hard about it, then get back to me.

[Texasforever]

You raise some good points.

Thanks but the noise level is still as high as ever. LOL

[rdb3]

. . . am also sick of this Balkanization of Conservatives, the missuse of " neocon" ( whch Linertarians are no using as an epithet ! ) , and the " MORE CONSERVATIVE THAN THOU " garbage, used primarily to beat up people with whom there is decided disagreement, and who has probaby been CONSERVATIVES decades longer than those who are doing the screaming.

Now you, my friend, are one of the few who understand the nature of the political game. The Major League rulebook does not apply to the NFL.

One more thing, that "more conservative than thou" attitude that you talk about is the exact same thing I deal with on a daily basis. But it's not the "more conservative than thou" line. It's the "blacker than thou" line.

And they are totally identical in nature.

I, too, totally deplore the Balkanization and self-fracturing that we on the Right are so good at doing. As a conservative, my #1 goal is to defeat the Left by any means necessary. To me, all else is moot. If we on the Right concentrated more on how to beat the Left, this country would be far different than it is now. The Left's #1 aim is to destroy us, right? Then how come we don't have common sense enough to realize it and act accordingly?

I wish I could answer my own question, but I can't.

[Lucius Cornelius Sulla]

Thanks but the noise level is still as high as ever.

If the purpose of this thread was to calm things down, I don't think it worked! Maybe some doses of Valium all around would help!!
LOL!

[Texasforever]

If the purpose of this thread was to calm things down, I don't think it worked! Maybe some doses of Valium all around would help!! LOL

A feeding frenzy is impossible to stop until the meal is devoured I guess.

[rdb3]

I read this 8 times and I still don't get how 245i gives amnesty to illegals who weren't legally here in the first place.

You can read it 8 more times and you still won't get it. Don't worry about that. Just think of the motives of those who so vociferously claim that 245(i) does grant blanket amnesty to all. Then you'll find your vision concerning this to become much more clear.

You've read it for yourself, and you see that it doesn't give what isn't requested. And once requested, there are several qualifiers before the amnesty is given. If the qualifiers aren't met, no amnesty is given.

It doesn't get any clearer than that, does it?

[itsahoot]

Semantics. How about some examples of legislation off limits to judicial review. I am really curious about that one.

I am quoting Bob Dornan on that one, but I will try and remember
the exact section of the constitution that gives them that power,
but not this early in the morning. I did check at the time and it is
there. And Sadly I don't remember if he mentioned any specific
examples, he may have I just don't recall.(gads that sounds Clintonian)

I am trying to be jovial here not personal, if it sounds that way
I am sorry, but I am and old fart that has seen more campaign
promises broken than engagements at a lonely hearts club,
so I am a little more weary than most. I voted for GW and my
reservations about him were accurate and I am not terribly
dissappointed, but I had hoped for better, and still do. But
like many on this board my patience wears a little thin. We shall see.