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"
I think you and a lot of people here are assuming the supremes will just throw this thing out. I have no such confidence. The USSC is pretty evenly divided, in essence you're asking SD O'Connor to write campaign finance law. Who feels good about that?
We're throwing dice w/ the Constitution; and if we lose the damage will be permanent.
Couldn't agree with you more, my friend.
Several weeks ago, I wrote this essay re: our First Amendment warrior:
|
Meet the Real Maverick In Washington: |
|
More than wishing, I'll be praying for you, my friend.
Hooray! Hooray! Hooray!
Hooray! Hooray! Hooray!
Amen! (Sen. McConnell, I assure you, will have the last laugh ;^)
I've been thinking about this legislation and why Bush would sign it even though he knows its unconstitutional.
Presidents, even some of our favorites, routinely sign legislation they know (or suspect) to be unconstitutional.
The best example of this: The federal budget itself. By some estimates, roughly 2/3rds is unconstitutional.
The charge that Bush is knowingly violating his oath would carry more weight if it were followed up with calls for his impeachment. I don't, as of yet, hear any such calls.
So I don't take such charges seriously.
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.