Victory For Campaign Reform

CBSNEWS ^ | Thursday, March 21, 2002

[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"

[eeriegeno]

When the oath, "Do you swear that you will tell the truth, whole truth, and nothing but the truth" is taken before a court of law, if that oath is broken perjury is committed.

When the oath, "Do you solemnly swear to uphold the Constitution of the United States of America....", if that oath is broken no violation of law occurs????

Why do we waste time with these silly 'oaths of office'??? Seems to me that Constitutional questions on CFR should have been answered in committee, not at the President's desk (or SCOTUS). If these lawmakers are that daft, the house needs cleaned my friends.......

[Congressman Billybob]

Dear John,

Everywhere I go on the threads this morning, you are there before me. Do you have no life? I know I don't.

Thanks for your prayers and good wishes on the challenge to Shays-Meehan. We all do what we can. We all do more than usual, when the issue winds up in our wheelhouse.

Well, the First Amendment in the US Supreme Court is my wheelhouse. I guaron-damn-tee that I will deal rudely, roughly and effectively with Shays-Meehan in that venue. Observe closely, my friends -- the fingers never leave the hands.

Congressman Billybob

Last 2 days: "The Truman Factor."

[alnick]

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.

Why? Does the fact that you don't agree with everything the president does change the fact that Gore tried to rig the election in broad daylight? Does it make election fraud somehow less outrageous?

That comment reminds of the people who supported Gore in November/December 2000 not because it was the right thing to do (which it wasn't), but because he was a democrat. After election day it stopped being about democrat or republican or the issues. After election day it was about stopping the theft of a presidential election.

Bush's stance on any issue now or at any other time doesn't change that.

[Uncle Bill]

Statement by the President

For Immediate Release
Office of the Press Secretary
March 20, 2002
Statement by the President

Like many Republicans and Democrats in the Congress, I support common-sense reforms to end abuses in our campaign finance system. The reforms passed today, while flawed in some areas, still improve the current system overall, and I will sign them into law.

The legislation makes some important progress on the timeliness of disclosure, individual contribution limits, and banning soft money from corporations and labor unions, but it does present some legitimate constitutional questions. I continue to believe the best reform is full and timely disclosure of campaign contributions.

###

Return to this article at:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/03/20020320-21.html

---

The George W. Bush Lie

ABC News's This Week on January 23, 2000:

GEORGE F. WILL: I want to see if you agree with those who say it would be bad for the First Amendment? I know you're not a lawyer, you say that with some pride, but do you think a president, and we've got a lot of non-lawyer presidents, has a duty to make an independent judgment of what is and is not constitutional, and veto bills that, in his judgment, he thinks are unconstitutional?

GOV. BUSH: I do.

WILL: In which case, would you veto the McCain-Feingold bill, or the Shays-Meehan bill?

BUSH: That's an interesting question. I — I — yes I would.
Source

LIAR - George W. Bush

[dittomom]

Great stuff, John. I agree with your bottom line, Bush is not a coward. He is not a liar either, as some folks want to call him. At one time, he probably thought as I did that the Dems would never actually go through with it. But now they have and he's not going to waste his time arguing with them when the courts can smack this badboy down. Personally, I would have preferred a nice public speech declaring why he cannot in good conscience sign this garbage - but like you say, the people don't have this on their radar screen. Sure McCain and friends will come back and try again - I say, let 'em.

Maybe next time the voters will finally wake up and see that their so-called representatives are merely fiddling around with UNCONSTITUTIONAL legislation designed to keep their sorry-behinds in office. Meanwhile, the President is trying to fight terrorists, cut our taxes, etc - things the people actually care about.

That's where the likes of Free Republic comes in. We've gotta pump up the volume and expose those who would vote for "The Incumbent Security Act" for what they are.

To name a few...

41 RINOS AGAINST FREE SPEECH - HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

"Republicans" who voted Y for passage, by state:

CA: Bono, Horn, Ose
CT: Johnson, Shays, Simmons
DE: Castle
FL: Foley, Ros-Lehtinen
IL: Johnson, Kirk
IA: Ganske, Leach
MD: Gilchrest, Morella
MI: Smith, Upton
MN: Ramstad
NE: Bereuter, Osborne
NH: Bass
NJ: Ferguson, Frelinghuysen, LoBiondo
NY: Boehlert, Gilman, Quinn, Walsh, Grucci, Houghton, McHugh
OH: LaTourette
PA: Greenwood, Weldon, Platts
SC: Graham
SD: Thune
TN: Wamp
VA: Wolf
WV: Capito
WI: Petri

11 RINOS AGAINST FREE SPEECH - SENATE

Lincoln Chafee of R.I.
Thad Cochran of Miss.
Susan Collins of Maine
Pete Domenici of N.M.
Peter Fitzgerald of Ill.
Richard Lugar of Ind.
John McCain of Ariz.
Olympia Snowe of Maine
Arlen Specter of Pa.
Fred Thompson of Tenn.
and John Warner of Va

[ModernDayCato]

What a ludicrous statement. First you bash Democrats for supporting Gore 'just because he's a democrat,' then you bash me for not supporting Bush just because he's not a conservative.

I don't support anyone who uses the U.S. Consitution for toilet paper. That transcends party, ideology or anything else. I won't drink the Bush koolaid.

[ModernDayCato]

Uh...who are you fighting, and who are you allied with?

[ModernDayCato]

Your post really saddens me. Yes, the RINOs on the list should not have passed CFR because it is unconstitutional. But the President is also part of that process, and he has the same responsibility that each member of Congress does.

It saddens me even more to see phrases like silly oath of office and other statements that reinforce my fears that we have lost the ideals of our Republic.

I guess I understand the ferocious defense of G.W. Bush, just as I understood the ferocious defense of Bill Clinton. What I don't understand is how the good, intelligent people that frequent Free Republic can give W a pass on this one.

You have to draw the line somewhere. The founders of this country made the first amendment first for a reason. I didn't elect GW Bush to rubber stamp a bad bill that he supposedly doesn't agree with and have the Supreme Court sort it out.

To me, that shows a lack of courage and resolve which arguably makes him a coward, and does, in fact, break a campaign promise, which arguably makes him a liar.

Granted, it's no more than all of the Reps in my state (both Democrat and Republican), and both of my Senators. But that just means that he's in good company.

I don't want to hear that there's no one else I can support or that if I throw my vote away Hillary will win the election. If no one supports the Bill of Rights or other vestiges of the Republic, there is truly no one I can vote for, and I have already thrown my vote away by voting for my Rep and G.W. Bush (I did not vote for my Senators).

[alnick]

No, what I said, in response to your statement that in retrospect you shouldn't have protested Gore's attempted election theft, is that Bush's actions now do not make Gore's actions back then any less outrageous.

[anniegetyourgun]

I will stick with the one party that has any potential to make a difference and attempt to influence them in the right direction. The alternative is to vote DEM or check out altogether as all other parties are inconsequential.

[ModernDayCato]

I appreciate your dedication. I've come to the conclusion that the Republic is doomed, something that bothers me tremendously. I've also come to the conclusion that there's nothing I can do about it. My only hope is that I'll be dead before it happens. Good luck.

[TLBSHOW]

BUMP

[anniegetyourgun]

I understand your frustration which is why I try not to put my ultimate hope in men. I know the end of the story and am simply passing through, but am called to stand for what is right in this life.

[dittomom]

Let's see. You say you're saddened. That the Republic is doomed and that there's nothing you can do about it.

I refuse to believe it's that bad.

DON'T opt out of the process. The sheeple that have paid no attention to any of this for their own selfish reasons are the problem. DON'T join them.

Stay involved.

Yes, we have to draw the line somewhere. I agree that the ones set down two hundred plus years ago are the best ones in the history of man. But in this particular conflict, the battlefield is moving to the courtroom. We've got some damn good warriors on our side and I believe we'll prevail.

It looks like President Bush drew the line at some terrorists who destroyed some buildings and killed 3000 innocent lives. That, too, is a battle we must win. The terrorists attack us for the prosperity and power we have gained. Those documents you and I cherish have had a hell of alot to do with why this nation has gained so much.

We can't all join the military to root out terrorists. We can't all become lawyers and duke it out in the courtroom. But we can make a difference in other ways. Even if its just changing someone's mind and getting them to vote.

OK, maybe I'm naive. But I'm not giving up.

[ModernDayCato]

Well said. I have other battles to fight...ones that I could possibly win, or at least make a dent in. I'd like to concentrate on them. I respect your efforts and wish you well.

[ModernDayCato]

Kick some @ss. I'm out.

[backhoe]

But we can make a difference in other ways. Even if its just changing someone's mind and getting them to vote....

Exactly. I can't recall who said it, but

"There is nothing more powerful than an idea whose time has come."

The only way I know to do things is get the information out there, and try to win people over one at a time.

I see this whole CRF stunt as "an end-run around Enron"-- they couldn't get any traction with Enron, so this was a fallback to "what they could win." And already they are saying it isn't enough- they'll have to go back and "revisit the issue." Like I mentioned, it is only the beginning of a vast silencing of Americans.

We have to resist, and we have to keep fighting.