Posted on 03/21/2002 2:36:35 AM PST by JohnHuang2
After years of delay, the Senate gave final congressional approval Wednesday to the most sweeping overhaul of campaign spending rules since the Watergate scandals. Continues here.
=============================================================
Shays-Meehan = Big Government
The Shays-Meehan bill, which cleared the Senate yesterday on a 60-40 vote, would, if signed, constitute the most breathtaking expansion of federal power in decades.
The legislation, euphemistically called "Campaign finance reform", is big government writ large. It reads like a wish-list for bullyragging bureaucratic thugs hell-bent on riding roughshod over citizens and the U.S. Constitution.
And for shady, venal-minded, crooked incumbents in Washington, well, Shays-Meehan is nothing short of a dream-come-true.
Imagine you're a Senator for a moment.
Don't like the notion of citizen advocacy groups taking you to task in TV ads for this or that vote, particularly so close to election day? Don't worry, relax: Campaign finance "reform" comes to the rescue!
Under provisions of Shays-Meehan, broadcast ads by pesky outside groups would be strictly forbidden 60 days before a general election (30 days before a primary). Yes, your troubles are over, dear Senator incumbent.
Groups like the NRA and National Right To Life Committee would be gagged and muffled just as election day looms and voters start paying attention. And -- here's the best part: You're free to swarm the airwaves with gazillions of ads extoling your brilliant Senate record -- all the while smearing your silienced opponents! Dream come true? You bet. If you're an incumbent, that is.
For John or Jane Q. Public, however, this bill could be a nightmare.
Imagine the plethora of potential abuse by FEC pinheads charged with enforcing this misbegotten, draconian rot-gut. Busy-bee bureaucrats, lest we forget, will be writing the labyrinth of regulatory do(s) and don't(s), after all. For citizens wishing to exercise first amendment rights, better hire a lawyer first -- this tangled mishmash maze of legal gallimaufry could land you in the pokey. And saddle you with hefty fines, to boot. Ask the Christian Coalition.
With Shays-Meehan, the era of big government will be back -- with a vengeance. Its administration will require an unconscionable transfer of power from citizens and states to federal Washington. Agencies such as the FEC, under this measure, will mushroom into unyielding monoliths, inexorably.
Our founding fathers are spinning in their graves.
Yet, in assembling their mammoth shrine to leviathan government, "reformers" have overplayed their hand. Shays-Meehan contains the seeds of its own demise -- at the hands of the U.S. Supreme Court.
So many of its fallacious provisions are so flagrantly unconstitutional -- so 'in-your-face -- the Supremes are likely to toss the whole thing in the ash-heap, in a New York minute.
The ash heap is, after all, the fate that awaits all such unlawful encroachments on our constitutional liberties.
That said, let me dispel a popular myth over why Bush intends to sign it.
Myth: Bush is a coward. He's afraid that a veto will spark a withering media/McCaniac firestorm, and a backlash from voters -- one which will cost him 15-20% points or more in popularity.
Fact: Outside the beltway, no one gives a rat's rump for Campaign finance "reform". Typically, this issue barely registers in surveys -- 2%, at most. With public attention focused so intently on the war, Bush could veto this easily with minimal downside risk. And he knows it.
Bottom line: The 'Bush is a coward' theory doesn't wash.
So why is he signing it? Most likely, his advisors tell him that signing it is the easiest way to kill it -- once and for all. The courts will strike down most -- if not all -- of its provisions. Doubling the limits on hard money donations to candidates -- a Republican advantage -- will likely survive, but not much else.
You may agree or disagree with this strategy -- I would much prefer a veto -- but to call the President a sniveling coward strikes me as hokum.
My two cents....
"JohnHuang2"
You've hit the nail on the head.
...After all, 'who else are we going to vote for?...
Howard Phillips, Alan Keys, or Harry Browne, just for openers.
...If I had known that he would repeatedly betray the principles he supposedly holds so dear, then turn his back on the Constitution I would not have frozen my ass off after election 2000 protesting Sore Loserman...
Nor would I have.
I sure do CB. Thanks for sharing. I liked the idea of option one and, like JH2, wish that W would veto it--with great fanfare and inflamatory language about an assault on free speech etc.
And John, you are right. Joe and Jane Public don't give two hoots about this. May the McPressholes' 'victory' be very short-lived....
I believe the democrats, shrewd politicians though they be, are barely hanging on by their fingernails. They obviously represent only certain very narrow constituencies, and rely on the general apathy and ignorance of the middle "swing" voters who are responsive to their liberal rhetoric of compassion (which is no longer anything but ideological cover for their real goal of power at any price). I believe Bush has found a way to defeat their politics, and one element of it is a degree of flexibility on principle where no very great consequences are at stake (in this case, because the Supreme Court will knock them out).
Bush set this up to be killed permanently. We may never have to fight this battle again. Sometimes the aggressive, in-your-face way is not the best way.
I will remind everyone about the parable of the old bull and the young bull for the umpteenth time. The President has shown that he knows the lesson it teaches. Things will work out in the long run. Let's have some faith on this, shall we? Nobody has said DOJ was going to defend this manure pile, in whole or in part, and the statement leaves lots of room for Olson to maneuver.
Patience is a virtue. Those who would stifle us are patient. Now we need to be patient and see what happens.
I'll simply add one thought to close on why Bush won't have too much to fear with losing his base prior to 2004:
President Hillary Clinton.
Seems lots of Freepers have decided to take a pass (opt out) in 2004 over this one. If his favorables stay high, we can afford their pout. If not and we are again in a tight race, we'll get a Dem and they'll all be smug about having "sent a message" which is more important to them than winning. After all, it worked with George H. W. Walker Bush and we got 8 years of Clinton. It can easily happen again.
Ah yes, the true goal of CFR. This is not the end folks but merely the first step toward that end. Nearly all the major proponents of CFR have stated this. They want public financing and free air time from the media. That way they won't have to raise any money themselves. Nice work, politicians.
I'm glad to see so many have such strong faith in the SCOTUS. I, however, do not. After seeing what a State Supreme Court like Florida's can do, I have lost nearly all faith in the Judiciary. This is a dangerous game of poker. What if they decide not to hear it? What if they decide in favor of it? What if we get a 5-4 decision? Will that be the end of it?
Let's see 80% of the GOP Senators voted against this and I would imagine close to the same percentage in the House. So, 80% of the GOP is against it and our GOP President is going to sign it. Go figure.
In the debates GW Bush asked me to hire him. I did. He didn't do his job. He's asking me to rehire him. I won't. I can't find someone qualified, so I will not hire anyone.
If you see fit to re-hire him after what he has done, I'm glad I'm not a shareholder in your company.
Pouting all the way,
Cato
So why is he signing it? Most likely, his advisors tell him that signing it is the easiest way to kill it -- once and for all. The courts will strike down most -- if not all -- of its provisions. Doubling the limits on hard money donations to candidates -- a Republican advantage -- will likely survive, but not much else.
It makes sense. I just pray this would happen.
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.