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
On policy grounds as they always do. The president takes an oath to preserve and to defend the constitution NOT to interpret law. Declaring a bill unconstitutional is a legal decision that the president does not posses. He can speak his mind and he can have his Solicitor General mount a challenge to a law that he likes except for the parts he feels are unconstitutional. I sure as hell do not want one man having constitutional veto. That is not protecting and defending the constitution.. Policy and those disputes are fine
where is that in the Constitution??
I thought we had 3 separate and co-equal branches of government. You have just made the courts the final imperial arbiters... sick!!
I know. lol
I thought we had 3 branches of government co-equal and this would mean that courts are in charge
He signed 8 out of 10 of the items on the GOP contract with America. If you use the thinking you're using you can say Clinto sold out the liberals by signing these. Did Clinton sell out the liberal base by doing this? I doubt too many would say he did!
Now, take a deep breath. Relax. I'm not the enemy, bub.
Byrd has already effectively killed the immigration amnesty and SCOTUS will kill CFR.
Let me run this by you one time, slowly so that even you can understand:
Bush has the Executive and his agenda.
Republicans control the House by a slim margin and they have their agenda, which does not always coincide with President Bush's.
The Dems have the Senate and, again, their own agenda.
Bush asks for amnesty for immigrants (legal or illegal, doesn't matter for the purposes of our example), thereby gaining some notice and respect from Hispanics who might start thinking about the Republican Party.
The House passes an amnesty bill, also ingatiating themselves to Hispanics and making themselves look like they want to help the downtrodden.
The Senate spikes the bill and gets away with it because they already have the Hispanic vote.
Now President Bush can tell Foxx that he tried, but what can he do (shoulder shrug), the Pubbie House has gained some notice amongst the downtrodden and the Senate has appeased their special interest groups, but in reality nothing has happened!
It's win/win for all three groups.
It's a dog and pony show, stupid (if I may return your gracious compliment).
Politics ain't beanbag and it's certainly no easier for conservatives to make any gains with bedwetters like you around.
That is a completely ignorant statement. Show me anywhere in the Constitution where it mentions the Supreme Court as being the final arbitrator of what is or is not constitutional. All three branches are given equal responsibility for determining and upholding the Constitution.
No I have not. I am advocating for the constitutional process to be carried out. I do not want some future president to veto a bill overturning Roe v. Wade because he considers it unconstitutional. I don't want a future president to veto a tax cut bill because he alone decides it is unconstitutional. That is why we have 3 co-equal branches of government and each branch have their own prerogatives and powers. Ask yourself why the constitution only allows ONE branch of government to be made up of Non-elected officials.
Your kind are a dying breed.
If Ron Paul introduced the appropriate articles just to make a point I think all FReepers (80%) would understand
Someone had sure as hell thell the Supremes that. Hell they could just go home and collect their checks.
It looks like you found the playbook.
If I had the Tom Landry's hat I'd give it to you.
It should be. Abortion has no place in the courts, it belongs to the states.
YOU do believe in an Imperial Court, everyone bow to the mighty lord Judges!! =o)
Since you are a mindreader, and know that President has " sold you out ", then perhaps you'll be so kind, as to tell me which stocks are going to make a big move on Thurday ? I could do with a nice LARGE day trade. : - )
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.
First, let me see if I can clear up some things I don't quite understand about your statement. Is what is important about the President's decisions the fact of being based on "principle" of whatever kind (as opposed to kowtowing to public pressure) or of being in accordance with the correct "principle?" And is "hold[ing] principle as [one's] standard" good because one holds the true principle, or some principle that one sticks to? And thus, is the issue here the conflicting interests of some members of the republic (one's ox being gored) or a conflict with justice or the common good?
has broken no oath or pledge
What about, "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of the President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the constitution of the United States."
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.