Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: DugwayDuke
Yesterday, I wrote this essay:

Shays-Meehan = Big Government
by JohnHuang2
March 21, 2002

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 extolling your brilliant Senate record -- all the while smearing your silenced 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"

Copyright Enrique N. ©2001


4 posted on 03/22/2002 2:28:47 AM PST by JohnHuang2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies ]


To: JohnHuang2
An excellent article that I completely agree with. If Bush's veto would kill CFR, then I would support that veto. But it will not. Only USSC can do that.

The thing I can't understand is this. If one truely belives CFR unconstitutional, then how can one object to presenting this bill to USSC? It appears those that are most vocal on the need for Bush to veto are really the ones who are afraid.

7 posted on 03/22/2002 2:57:12 AM PST by DugwayDuke
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies ]

To: JohnHuang2;DugwayDuke
The courts will strike down most -- if not all -- of its provisions.

Why are we, and Bush, relying on the Supreme Court to strike down this unconstitutional bill? Especially courts that are packed with socialist-minded hacks?

What happened to the oath all politicians swear?

DugwayDuke is correct when he says, "...if Bush vetos this bill, then it will be back next year and the next year and the next."

This is exactly how big government has managed to trash our Constitution in years past, when my generation allowed them to "because it sounded like a good idea." The hacks wear you down with the medias help, finally convincing you "it's a good idea," and "we are 'protecting' you from corruption."

Ten million tons of grade "A" BS!

14 posted on 03/22/2002 3:41:10 AM PST by Budge
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies ]

To: JohnHuang2
An excellent analysis and it may very well be true. However, I believe that it lets Bush off too easily. I agree with Limbaugh that it is the duty of all constitutional officers to uphold the constitution, and that includes resisting acts that are clearly unconstitutional.

Second, Bush has been very quiet on this issue. He could have been making a case that the provisions of this bill are an infringement on our freedom of speech. It’s bizarre when free speech is defined as the right of a woman to dance nude in a bar, but not for citizens to speak publicly about a candidate within 60 days of an election.

If Bush had been vocal about your scenario, I would give it more weight. Your analysis is persuasive. And for those of us who are Bush supporters, we would like to think that you have captured his motivation. However, I remain unpersuaded.

You write great essays. Do you do it for a living?

21 posted on 03/22/2002 4:19:13 AM PST by moneyrunner
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson