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 ... 121-140141-160161-180 ... 221-238 next last
To: FreedominJesusChrist
If there is an Illinois Law saying that no third party shall run for office if they had already lost a primary; it is in conflict with what the Illinois Constitution says.

Constitution of the State of Illinois

ARTICLE V

SECTION 3. ELIGIBILITY

To be eligible to hold the office of Governor, Lieutenant Governor, Attorney General, Secretary of State, Comptroller or Treasurer, a person must be a United States citizen, at least 25 years old, and a resident of this State for the three years preceding his election.

(Source: Illinois Constitution.)

141 posted on 03/22/2002 7:02:54 PM PST by FreedominJesusChrist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 136 | View Replies]

To: FreedominJesusChrist
Boy, that is just such a great idea for a simple children's book..

Well since it seems you to act like a two year old, basically saying,

"If I don't get a candidate that agrees with me 100%. I am going to hold my breath until I turn blue and will let someone who I agree with 0% win",

you should be an expert in that realm. Knock yourself out.

142 posted on 03/22/2002 7:06:19 PM PST by Dane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 133 | View Replies]

To: wcbtinman
Lie #2: When he took his oath of office, vs his acknowledgement of Constitutional problems with the legislation.

Because a veto only postpones future passage with a new president. There was no non-severability clause in the bill so he will let the court address the questionable parts. His oath of office does NOT include deciding unilaterally the constitutional soundness of any legislation. The idea that he is violating his oath is absurd and a straw man of wannabe dictators. Every bill is deemed unconstitutional by someone but that determination is a matter of fact and law and the constitution puts that responsibility squarely with the USSC. The SC hears cases having to do with 1st amendment issues on a regular basis and historically are very hard on restrictions. This is just one more for them to deal with.

143 posted on 03/22/2002 7:06:34 PM PST by Texasforever
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 138 | View Replies]

To: Pokey78
but then I look at the front page of FR and I see this

"Not over my dead body will they curtail your free speech!"

--

President George "Dubya" Bush (what he should say re: CFR)

Free Republic front page

144 posted on 03/22/2002 7:09:34 PM PST by TLBSHOW
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 121 | View Replies]

To: Uncle Bill
Bill, are you that dishonest? That is NOT the same EO. I am sure you lie to your nieces and nephews too.
145 posted on 03/22/2002 7:12:29 PM PST by Texasforever
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 140 | View Replies]

To: Dane
Come on and wake up. Bush is not God! He is a person who needs to have a long long talk with Rush Limbaugh.
146 posted on 03/22/2002 7:14:33 PM PST by TLBSHOW
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 119 | View Replies]

To: mystery-ak
Jonathan is making all of us proud. I will keep him in my thoughts & prayers.

I don't agree 100% with anyboday, including George W. Bush. But this "He's a liar just like his daddy" crap is getting a little old and tiresome.

Be pissed. Fine. But voting with the knuckledragging Neanderthal party in the next election will only serve to boost the real enemies of freedom and liberty. And they will have learned from 8 years of Bubba and his merry band of malefactors what not to do to get caught.

147 posted on 03/22/2002 7:14:37 PM PST by Pokey78
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 139 | View Replies]

To: FreedominJesusChrist
It's irrelevant whether I have been in Illinois or not.

Primaries are fine, but Ryan won. If O'Malley runs as an independent, then he is no better than the people who sabotaged Ollie North and Bret Schundler.

It's your call. But if you decide to participate in the backstabbing, you'll be responsible for Blagojevich.

Bret Schundler is a conservative I will match up with O'Malley any time, and he also said after he lost last year, "We lost because we were never able to achieve the Republican unity necessary to get our message out."

I invite you to read his message. I'll put the URL here again (http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/570667/posts).

Jim Ryan is the man who was selected according to the rules this past Tuesday. If you decide to stab him in the back, that is your choice, but you will only elect Blagojevich and lose on EVERYTHING you stand for.

148 posted on 03/22/2002 7:14:48 PM PST by hchutch
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 127 | View Replies]

To: mystery-ak
btw....please say a short prayer for my son Jonathan who is in basic now.....Im just a worried mom!

Done and a prayer for you and for our troops who may be in harms way.

Keep well.

149 posted on 03/22/2002 7:15:22 PM PST by Dane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 139 | View Replies]

To: Barnacle
Okay, we already know that the 10th Amendment reserves the right of states, such as Illinois to write their own Constitution and we have seen the requirments for being eligible to run for Executive Office in the State of Illinois. If such a law exists as you claim, this would be denying Pat O'Malley of, according to Section 2 of the Illinois State Constitution:

SECTION 2. DUE PROCESS AND EQUAL PROTECTION

No person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law nor be denied the equal protection of the laws.

In other words, technically, if this law were actually in existence, the State of Illinois would not only be violating Pat O'Malley's civil rights, but it would also be denying Pat O'Malley the Equal Protection of and under the Laws, by not allowing him to run for office just because he lost a previous primary, which is only a straw vote and not even an open primary, but a closed one. So, let's hope that this law is not really real, because if it were, his Civil Rights would be in violation. This would make a really fascinating State Supreme Court case.

150 posted on 03/22/2002 7:16:07 PM PST by FreedominJesusChrist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 136 | View Replies]

To: TLBSHOW
No problem with that just debate the issue honestly and I will be right at your side. I sent e-mails urging vetoes of both the IPA and the CFR but I will not join a damned lynch mob that rely on misrepresentations, out right lies and foot stomping tantrums..
151 posted on 03/22/2002 7:16:27 PM PST by Texasforever
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 144 | View Replies]

To: Dane
I am not sure if I am the one being childish. At least I still respect you as a fellow conservative even though I may not agree with you on every single issue.
152 posted on 03/22/2002 7:19:15 PM PST by FreedominJesusChrist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 142 | View Replies]

To: hchutch
In response to reply #113. I have had enough with corruption in Illinois and I want a real change, not just another Republican Governor that will either become corrupt himself or not do his job. I understand why you feel the way you do, but please respect me for trying to stick to my beliefs and principles.
153 posted on 03/22/2002 7:22:22 PM PST by FreedominJesusChrist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 113 | View Replies]

To: Texasforever
"The idea that he is violating his oath is absurd..."

If Bush had not already acknowledged that there are Constitutional problems with this CFR disaster, you would have a point. However, that he has done so leads him to a black and white choice. Don't tell me he doesn't have the ability to unilaterally decide that some legislation is un-constitutional and therefore veto it. That's why he has the veto power in the first place, and why so-called conservatives elected him to be the final check and balance in the legislative process.

And another thing. Even if he were to veto CFR, the fact that Bush has openly played fast and loose with my Constitutional freedoms for political purposes is enough for me to do everything I can to see to it that he is a one term president.

You won't change my mind. Go argue with a fencepost, you'll have better luck.

154 posted on 03/22/2002 7:25:03 PM PST by wcbtinman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 143 | View Replies]

To: TLBSHOW
BTW, appealing to "higher authority" is a bush league way of debating. Pun intended. What you are advocating is the same as you are beating Bush supporters over the head with. IOW the management of FreeRepublic has spoken so get in line. My entire participation on this thread was based on the e-mail from Brian Buckley and his, I will be nice, mistaken assertion that Bush is a liar in regard to "paycheck protection". I am still waiting for that post to be corrected.
155 posted on 03/22/2002 7:31:28 PM PST by Texasforever
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 144 | View Replies]

To: Texasforever
I don't think it is a lynch mob but if Bush wants to set things stright and right, he should never ever of released this the other day.

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.

I will sign them into law.

156 posted on 03/22/2002 7:37:43 PM PST by TLBSHOW
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 151 | View Replies]

To: Texasforever
I didn't say it was the same executive order. Your spending all this time trying to get George W. Bush down from three lies to two. What's the point? LOL!


157 posted on 03/22/2002 7:39:31 PM PST by Uncle Bill
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 145 | View Replies]

To: Uncle Bill
didn't say it was the same executive order. Your spending all this time trying to get George W. Bush down from three lies to two. What's the point? LOL!

No I busted your ass and you are not man enough to admit it. Tell me the other two "lies".

158 posted on 03/22/2002 7:43:52 PM PST by Texasforever
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 157 | View Replies]

To: TLBSHOW
I don't think it is a lynch mob but if Bush wants to set things stright and right, he should never ever of released this the other day.

If it is not I would hate to see one. As I said, Every principle Bush put forward was met other than the one he did on his own with the EO. He sent that letter to the now ex-majority leader lott. Now we have Majority leader Dashole and he STILL got he principles incorporated.

159 posted on 03/22/2002 7:48:46 PM PST by Texasforever
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 156 | View Replies]

To: Texasforever
One question if you know? Can Bush take out what he does not want in the bill, leave the rest and then sign it?
160 posted on 03/22/2002 8:06:35 PM PST by TLBSHOW
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 158 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 121-140141-160161-180 ... 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