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

Skip to comments.

President Bush Outlines Campaign Reform Principles
The Whitehouse ^ | March 15, 2001 (One year ago) | George W. Bush

Posted on 03/22/2002 1:12:55 PM PST by Jim Robinson

For Immediate Release
Office of the Press Secretary
March 15, 2001

President Bush Outlines Campaign Reform Principles

March 15, 2001

The Honorable Trent Lott
Senate Majority Leader
S-230, The Capitol
Washington, DC  20510

Dear Senator Lott:

     As the Senate prepares to consider campaign finance reform legislation, I wanted to highlight my principles for reform.  I am committed to working with the Congress to ensure that fair and balanced campaign reform legislation is enacted.

     These principles represent my framework for assessing campaign finance reform legislation.  I remain open to other ideas to meet shared goals.

     I am hopeful that, working together, we can achieve responsible campaign finance reforms.

Sincerely,

George W. Bush


Campaign Finance Reform

President Bush's Reform Principles

Protect Rights of Individuals to Participate in Democracy: President Bush believes democracy is first and foremost about the rights of individuals to express their views.  He supports strengthening the role of individuals in the political process by: 1) updating the limits established more than two decades ago on individual giving to candidates and national parties; and 2) protecting the rights of citizen groups to engage in issue advocacy.

Maintain Strong Political Parties: President Bush believes political parties play an essential role in making America's democratic system operate.  He wants to maintain the strength of parties, and not to weaken them.  Any reform should help political parties more fully engage citizens in the political process and encourage them to express their views and to vote.

Ban Corporate and Union Soft Money:  Corporations and labor unions spend millions of dollars every election cycle in unregulated 'soft? money to influence federal elections.  President Bush supports a ban on unregulated corporate and union contributions of soft money to political parties.

Eliminate Involuntary Contributions: President Bush believes no one should be forced to support a candidate or cause against his or her will.  He therefore supports two parallel reforms:  1) legislation to prohibit corporations from using treasury funds for political activity without the permission of shareholders; and 2) legislation to require unions to obtain authorization from each dues-paying worker before spending those dues on activities unrelated to collective bargaining.

Require Full and Prompt Disclosure: President Bush also believes that in an open society, the best safeguard against abuse is full disclosure.  He supports full, prompt and constitutionally permissible disclosure of contributions and expenditures designed to influence the outcome of federal elections, so voters will have complete and timely information on which to make informed decisions.

Promote Fair, Balanced, Constitutional Approach: President Bush believes reform should not favor any one party over another or incumbents over challengers.  Both corporations and unions should be prohibited from giving soft money to political parties, and both corporations and unions should have to obtain permission from their stockholders or dues-paying workers before spending treasury funds or dues on politics.  President Bush supports including a non-severability provision, so if any provision of the bill is found unconstitutional, the entire bill is sent back to Congress for further adjustments and deliberations.  This provision will ensure fair and balanced campaign finance reform.


Return to this article at:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/03/20010315-7.html


TOPICS: Activism/Chapters; Constitution/Conservatism; Extended News; Government; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: campaignreform; cfr; cfrlist; presidentbush; signingconditions; silenceamerica
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 81-100101-120121-140 ... 221-238 next last
To: SpookBrat
Amen to that!
101 posted on 03/22/2002 6:09:48 PM PST by hchutch
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 98 | View Replies]

To: Texasforever
He's an ideological purist who would rather get nothing than get 95% of what he wants.

What is there for him to address? You don't understand these people.

102 posted on 03/22/2002 6:09:56 PM PST by GraniteStateConservative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 76 | View Replies]

To: GraniteStateConservative
What is there for him to address? You don't understand these people.

Oh I do understand them. What I don't understand is why that e-mail is still posted.

103 posted on 03/22/2002 6:13:16 PM PST by Texasforever
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 102 | View Replies]

To: GraniteStateConservative
Hey, don't diss Pat O'Malley, he is a conservative's conservative if I ever did see or meet one.

By the way, if you don't live in Illinois, you probably wouldn't understand what the current Republican Administration has done to our great State, the Land of Lincoln. Jim Ryan has had his entire term in office as Attorney General, to investigate and prosecute the License for Bribes Scandal. The key to this question is that he didn't, and a federal prosecutor had to come in and do Ryan's job.

This was a major embarrassment for our State, and it became obvious we weren't getting our tax dollar's worth out of him. Hundreds of thousands of dollars was placed into George Ryan's campaign chest from the License for Bribes Scandal and a Pastor and his wife had to watch their 5 children die in a fiery van because a truck driver with an illegal license wasn't being careful. We don't deserve these clowns in office; we need someone like Pat O'Malley. If you don't live in Illinois, you probably wouldn't understand. The Illinois GOP is suffering because they placed George Ryan, a RINO Republican into office, and Jim Ryan won't be any different. Besides the License for Bribes Scandal, what has Jim Ryan done about the money laundering going on in Jesse Jackson's Chicago-based Rainbow/Push Coalition? The answer is nothing because he is too much of a coward to do anything. If Jim Ryan can't do his job as Attorney General of Illinois, I don't want him in the Governor's office either.

Some people would rather jump off the slippery slope with the rest of the Lemmings instead of trying to put a true conservative in office.

104 posted on 03/22/2002 6:13:35 PM PST by FreedominJesusChrist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies]

To: GraniteStateConservative
Every damned one of Bush's principles are incorporated into this CFR.
105 posted on 03/22/2002 6:14:46 PM PST by Texasforever
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 102 | View Replies]

To: Texasforever
I appreciate your efforts to bring the FACTS to the table. I really do. I've avoided posting on these threads, but couldn't tonight. Thanks for your posts.
106 posted on 03/22/2002 6:15:19 PM PST by SpookBrat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 100 | View Replies]

To: FreedominJesusChrist
Some people would rather jump off the slippery slope with the rest of the Lemmings instead of trying to put a true conservative in office

Don't complain if Blagdovich(sp?) the dem is elected, you'll just become the dictionary definition of the saying, "Cutting off your nose to spite your face".

107 posted on 03/22/2002 6:17:05 PM PST by Dane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 104 | View Replies]

To: Dane
It would seem that many think that winning a primary is winning the election. Yep pre-mature eletjalation.
108 posted on 03/22/2002 6:20:21 PM PST by Texasforever
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 107 | View Replies]

To: Dane
Yes, you spelled his name wrong. You know, if Pat O'Malley doesn't run in this election, I will not vote for anyone at all. There is no point in voting for a Republican that won't do anything while in office. Jim Ryan couldn't even do his job as Illinois Attorney General, so what makes you think he will be so much better in the Governor's office? Everyone thought that George Ryan would get better when he came from the Secretary of State's office and we all know where he went from there--Corruption, Bribery, Fraud, Lying, Back-dealing, and never apologizing to all of those who were hurt because of the License for Bribes Scandal.

Jim Ryan hid in the corner for the past 6 years and did nothing about this. Jim Ryan hid in the corner when Jesse Jackson was diverting his non-profit funds to his own personal use. Point is, Jim Ryan is a lousy politician and a lousy leader. We deserve better and unless you have to live here, don't down me for wanting a new person in office.

109 posted on 03/22/2002 6:22:45 PM PST by FreedominJesusChrist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 107 | View Replies]

To: Dane
How did you know my real name?
110 posted on 03/22/2002 6:24:22 PM PST by FreedominJesusChrist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 107 | View Replies]

To: FreedominJesusChrist
I can't believe you support a wacko like O'Malley. O'Malley will be king of O'Malley-land and that's about it. Meanwhile Illinois will have a liberal Democrat governor because O'Malley spent money to try to defeat a conservative (yes, that's what Ryan is-- he is pro-life and pro-2A) and because Wood is a spoiled brat (as is O'Malley).

You lost the primary. What part of that do you not understand???

I assume you live in Illinois, and I will laugh my ass off at the thought that New Hampshire will elect a Republican this fall to govern us and you'll have a communist who supports partial-birth abortion. Voters like you are chumps.

111 posted on 03/22/2002 6:25:31 PM PST by GraniteStateConservative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 104 | View Replies]

To: SpookBrat
People can sit here and trash him till the cows come home.

JMO, but some of the naysayers are disruptors, others are just perpetually cynical and always see the glass as "half-empty" and will never change.

Thank you for your optimism and reason.

112 posted on 03/22/2002 6:25:31 PM PST by Dane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 98 | View Replies]

To: FreedominJesusChrist; Jim Robinson; Coop; Exit148; Tony Soprano; Miss Marple; JohnHuang2...
Yeah, and some folks will give us Rod Blagojevich for the sake of ideological purity.

Please explain to me how Blagojevich is going to make things better for the pro-life, pro-Second Amendment, lower-taxes causes, because I see one of these so-called "progressives" who will REALLY screw everything up big time.

Do you even know what Blagojevich's record is? The guy is a certified left wingnut!

Go ahead, be an ideological pruist. But when Blagojevich rams through his agenda, which will be gun bans, tax increases, and all sorts of crap, will you still be proud of yourself?

I did not like it when Ollie North and Bret Schundler were stabbed in the back by the party establishment, and I will not be quiet as purists stab a GOP nominee in the back, even if he is not the guy I would have wanted. O'Malley is no better than John Warner or Donnie DiFrancesco if he stabs Jim Ryan in the back and gives Illinois Blagojevich.

To quote Bret Schundler's message after his loss due to backstabbing from RINOs: "You cannot win a football game with just eight of eleven players on the field. Primaries are fine, but those who are not willing to come together after a primary must not be allowed to be in positions of leadership within our Party."
Thread URL: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/570667/posts

Freepers backed Schundler like crazy just last year, and I was angry and bitter about the backstabbing. I cannot speak for them (several from a post-Election Day 2001 thread have been pinged), but as someone who in Virginia saw Ollie North stabbed in the back, I will NOT tolerate any backstabbing against anyone. Make your decision on this, but think it over very carefully. If you make the wrong choice, you just might lose the very fights you want to win, and you just might help elect the very people you want to keep out of office.

113 posted on 03/22/2002 6:29:02 PM PST by hchutch
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 104 | View Replies]

To: SpookBrat; terilyn
People can sit here and trash him till the cows come home. Democrats are quaking in their boots. They are scared to death of him, foaming at the mouth like the rabid animals they are.

Ahhh, but see you have just addressed an issue that you weren't aware of.

Listen. You are absolutely correct in that the Dems don't know how to play W. He positions himself so that he never gives the Left a static target to attack. His approval ratings, if you care about such things, demonstrate that whatever the Dems are doing, it ain't working because they have failed thus far to knock him off of his perch.

But there is the underside to all of this: The conservative base. If one can adequately use FR as a thermometer for the mood among conservatives, the RATS may pick up on it and use it to their advantage. Sun Tzu wrote about this when he said that when your enemy has a fire inside its camp, attack from the outside.

Check this out. It's no secret that the RATS are good at politics. They are very good. But what if they move to criticize W. on his conservative record, not by denigrating it because it's conservative, per se, but criticize him in such a way as to deflate the mood of our base? If they get the feeling that the party faithful (I mean conservatives, not just GOP) are Balkanized, our Balkanization would play right into their hands.

Think about that for a sec.

They know that no matter what, their base votes for their candidates. Period. Take Clinton signing Welfare Reform back in the mid '90s. Clinton, upon advise of his then adviser Dick Morris, took his party faithful kicking and screaming along with him and he signed the bill.

Question: Did the RAT base fail to continue support their President due to one disagreement? Absolutely not! And the proof is how they circled the wagons during impeachment, knowing full well in their heart of hearts that he was guilty as sin. But under no circumstance were they going to give conservatives what they wanted. They stuck together like Super Glue.

Would that we were as tenacious and vicious as they are.

114 posted on 03/22/2002 6:29:05 PM PST by rdb3
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 98 | View Replies]

To: Dane
Your argument is a Catch-22, because whether you like it or not, although I may be perpetually cynical as you claim, you tend to see President Bush only through rose-colored lenses.
115 posted on 03/22/2002 6:29:53 PM PST by FreedominJesusChrist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 112 | View Replies]

To: Dane
Optimism is my middle name. :) That's one of the reasons why I am a conservative. I don't pee all over myself, hand wringing, waiting for the earth to self-destruct. Pessimism is for liberals.
116 posted on 03/22/2002 6:30:51 PM PST by SpookBrat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 112 | View Replies]

To: Texasforever
Where do you get that? Is it too much to ask that my President tells me the truth? That he put the interest of the country on at leasst as high a level as he puts the interest of his party?

Listen to yourself. You sound like Paul Begala.

117 posted on 03/22/2002 6:34:46 PM PST by Ahban
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 90 | View Replies]

To: GraniteStateConservative
Well, my final comment to you is that I will be working my butt off for O'Malley this summer when I am home from school. A quarter million of IL Republicans cast their vote for Pat O'Malley this primary, and I think that these people will stick with him, if and when he decides to run against the other two wanna-be's for the Governor's seat.
118 posted on 03/22/2002 6:35:01 PM PST by FreedominJesusChrist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 111 | View Replies]

To: FreedominJesusChrist
Your argument is a Catch-22, because whether you like it or not, although I may be perpetually cynical as you claim, you tend to see President Bush only through rose-colored lenses

Bush is 1000 times better than Gore and I don't agree with Bush 100%. I don't agree with anybody 100%. If that means I see everything with rose color glasses to you, so be it.

At least I don't go into a self-flagellation fit about being "betrayed" if Bush gets a hang nail.

I will let the man do his job in the enviroment he is in(demo senate and state of war), without criticizing and micromanaging every word.

119 posted on 03/22/2002 6:37:37 PM PST by Dane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 115 | View Replies]

To: Ahban
here do you get that? Is it too much to ask that my President tells me the truth? That he put the interest of the country on at leasst as high a level as he puts the interest of his party?

He told the truth. He did NOT lie.

120 posted on 03/22/2002 6:37:51 PM PST by Texasforever
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 117 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 81-100101-120121-140 ... 221-238 next last

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.

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