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

[hchutch]

But here's the thing. Suppose Daschle's noises about Defense were part of a threat used to force Bush to capitulate. IMHO, those noises from Daschle, Senator KKK, and others had to play a major part in this.

The Dems were able to make Bush choose between a campaign promise and the troops. Bush, like any wartime Commander-in-Chief should, chose the troops.

I say we spread that rumor out there, whether it's true or not. It'll be no different than the Mediscare ads. If that's what we gotta do, that's what we gotta do.

[hchutch]

The media would have covered for Daschle, espeically with CFR at stake. No, I do not see how that would happen. And fi there was a fight, the Dems would back Daschle on that. We should not kid ourselves. They threw out soldiers' votes, no problem. Why should any of this other crap be different?

[hchutch]

The media would have covered for Daschle, espeically with CFR at stake. No, I do not see how that would happen. And fi there was a fight, the Dems would back Daschle on that. We should not kid ourselves. They threw out soldiers' votes, no problem. Why should any of this other crap be different?

[hchutch]

The media would have covered for Daschle, espeically with CFR at stake. No, I do not see how that would happen. And fi there was a fight, the Dems would back Daschle on that. We should not kid ourselves. They threw out soldiers' votes, no problem. Why should any of this other crap be different?

[Dales]

If Bush had kept his word to me, I might be willing to play politics for him.

But he didn't, and I am not.

[NittanyLion]

The media would have covered for Daschle, especially with CFR at stake.

The media would have tried, but Bush has the opportunity to bypass the media and speak directly to the American public if he chooses. And remember, regardless of the media's view 90% of Americans favor Bush's handling of the war. Bush would merely need to come out and speak reasonably about how, "We may have our differences on domestic policy, but we must present a united front to the world unless we want a repeat of 9/11." That would have sent Daschle scampering back to his hole.

[hchutch]

Fine, but don't complain if Hillary or Al Gore get elected in 2004.

[hchutch]

The man is shameless, and the media shill for the Dems. Sorry, but you've got no clue about the strategy involved in D.C. It's ugly, and I won't deny it.

And if you really think we could have demolished Daschle, simple as that, we'd have done so. It just couldn't be done.

[Dales]

Time will tell. Believe me, I understand that risk.

I am very resentful of the fact that now I have to once again weigh every position I take against the pragmatic reality.

For once, I would like to be able to put my faith and efforts behind someone who actually cares about what they say they care about.

Right now, my perspective is that if he doesn't feel a backlash against this very stupid maneuver, if he expects blind support from the right because the threat of the Democrats is so bad, then he is more likely to make more decisions like this.

There was no reason for him to capitulate on this. And if he gets the support of people like me anyway, there will be no reason for him to think twice about doing it again.

This sucks, all around.

[DLfromthedesert]

The problem I have is that he is willing to expend poltical capital on this issue, by pressuring Congress about it. Why didn't he pressure Congress to enact a CFR Bill that didn't trash the First Amendment, or put more pressure on the Dem Senators in the Judiciary Committee on the Pickering nomination?

Are the Mexican citizens more important than the Bill of Rights ? Apparently, in his estimation.

[conserve-it]

"But it is also useful to remind ourselves that, while we do indeed have a Supreme Court whose job it is to interpret the law, we also are not out of place to expect that a) the Congress of the United States should not write flagrantly unconstitutional legislation and, b) if they should, that the President of the United States should not sign flagrantly unconstitutional legislation. Someone in the Bush Administration should make it his or her business to sit this President down and pound some sense into him that this legislation is unconstitutional before he does sign it. We should not just comfort ourselves to await a fight to the Supreme Court to be rid of it."

Ah!! Logic and reason becomes you!!

[Tauzero]

"You still don't understand. Only in a parlimenatry form of governance, can a fringe eliment have actual power INSIDE the governing body ! "

No, I understand that.

Fringers can cause you to lose when margins of victory are thin. You don't like that? Tough. Deal with it.

"Quite the contrary ; they make enemies !"

And you do such a great job of winning over the "fringe" that you "need".

RINOs and other party reptiles are appropriately recognized as enemies.

To paraphrase a great man, the party was made for Republicans, not Republicans for the party.

[Tauzero]

"You don't convince anyone to do something while calling them scum."

Oh really? I guess that's why our colleges are such citadels of freedom these days...

[Tauzero]

"The Government is not a collection of street gangs that schedule rumbles to decide what philosophy wins 100%. "

No, but it is a collection of street gangs.

"There is no 100% in politics it is usually 50-50"

Good news for the "fringe" that. Gives 'em leverage.

"when you get right down to it, this government really is a reflection of the people that elect it."

Ain't that the sad truth.

[Tauzero]

"Dems, no matter what, stick together ."

Sure. That's why Gore won, right?

Ah, such fond memories I have of Chicago '68. What a love fest and moment of solidarity that was.

[itsahoot]

Read a little further down the article, it definately says not subject
to Judicial Review.

As I was telling Tex I could not recall any specific cases, but something
came to mind. Dornan may have mentioned the Railroad act in his
discussion of the subject. Can't say with certainty though.

[JDGreen123]

Oh I know Byrd is all about politics and playing this to the Democrat advantage. I just pick my allies where I can find them on important issues. Even loony Byrd can be right about some issues.

[Lucius Cornelius Sulla]

Read a little further down the article, it definately says not subject to Judicial Review.

Yes those words are there, in a subparagraph to a paragraph not quoted. Once it gets that far in, I need to hear a lawyer's explanation. I do know that I have heard that the right of the Congress to withdraw jurisdiction from the courts has never been upheld by the court. Of course I only had an undergraduate course in Constitutional Law, so I am not convinced either way.

[itsahoot]

Sure. That's why Gore won, right?

I think if you check, you will find that a majority of the voters
did vote for him.(Barf!!!!!)

[itsahoot]

Did you read this one in your studies?

TITLE 15 , CHAPTER 88 , Sec. 6208.

US CODE COLLECTION

TITLE 15 > CHAPTER 88 > Sec. 6208.

Prev | Next

Sec. 6208. - Limitations on judicial review (a) Determinations Determinations made under paragraphs (1) and (3) of section 6207(a) of this title shall not be subject to judicial review. (b) Citations to and descriptions of confidentiality laws Whether an antitrust mutual assistance agreement satisfies section 6211(2)(C) of this title shall not be subject to judicial review. (c) Rules of construction (1) Administrative Procedure Act The requirements in section 6206 of this title with respect to publication and request for public comment shall not be construed to create any availability of judicial review under chapter 7 of title 5. (2) Laws referenced in section 6204 of this title Nothing in this section shall be construed to affect the availability of judicial review under laws referred to in section 6204 of this title

Search this title:


Notes
Updates
Parallel authorities (CFR)
Topical references

Prev | Next