President Bush Outlines Campaign Reform Principles

The Whitehouse ^ | March 15, 2001 (One year ago) | George W. Bush

[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

[Uncle Bill]

Sure he's a liar. You can't read.

[terilyn]

Actually, most states have what's called a "Loser Law". A candidate that runs in the primary cannot run in the general under a third party mainly because they would just be a spoiler. Prime example of this would be in California right now. Condit lost in the primary. There was a lot of speculation that he would go Independent and run for his seat in the general but that was shown here on FR by somebody smarter than me to be impossible because of California's Loser Law. Therefore, Condit is toast. (Good riddance BTW)!

[TLBSHOW]

March 20th Press Briefing

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/03/20020320-16.html

[rdb3]

You may want to direct your comments to me since I was the one quoted in the post you are referring to here.

[My back yard]

Rant on! You said a lot, and said it well.

[terilyn]

Thank you, it felt good!

[Scholastic]

BUMP!

[Scholastic]

Uncle Bill, you are principle personified.

[Scholastic]

You gotta vote for the liberal commie Republican, otherwize you will get a liberal commie Democrat! DOnt you see the logic!?

[FreedominJesusChrist]

I understand the logic, but am disgusted by it. Many here just love situation ethics, for we all know that if it was Bill Clinton proposing amnesty and signing CFR into law, they would be just as intolerant of this as we are now. But because George W. Bush is in office, suddenly these actions become part of a big and elaborate plan that is way too deep for us to understand.

[FreedominJesusChrist]

I will sincerely remember you advice, but will most likely be glad that I stuck to my beliefs and principles. If Pat O'Malley decides to run, I am going to help him out to the best of my ability. What I would really like to do is get his name out to college campuses all around Illinois; I think that young people will really like what he has to say about the corruption in Illinois and sticking to one's principles. The reason that teens and young people are so disillusioned with politics is because so many of our political leaders have let us down, whether it is through broken campaign promises, ignoring corruption, or through their own personal lives. Things have got to change in Illinois and it won't be through either Ryan or Blagovich--it has to be through a person that sticks to their guns and that is Pat O'Malley completely.

[FreedominJesusChrist]

"Actually, most states have what's called a "Loser Law". A candidate that runs in the primary cannot run in the general under a third party mainly because they would just be a spoiler. Prime example of this would be in California right now. Condit lost in the primary. There was a lot of speculation that he would go Independent and run for his seat in the general but that was shown here on FR by somebody smarter than me to be impossible because of California's Loser Law. Therefore, Condit is toast. (Good riddance BTW)!"

Those loser laws should really be declared unconstitutional and I am surprised that people haven't challenged these laws in court. Denying an individual the right to run for public office because they lost a primary, is really denying them equal protection of the laws and violating their civil rights, in accordance with the 14th Amendment, which has aleady been applied to the states because it is implicit to the concept of ordered liberty.

[TLBSHOW]

You were?

[TLBSHOW]

lets hope he vetoes it. BUt I hear he traded this for the education bill. Do you know?

[rdb3]

Yep.

[RamsNo1]

Repeat after me---there wouldn't be any strategy needed for overturning anything if the President would veto an unconstitutional bill in the first place. This argument on numerous threads has more to do about the disgusting action of the President signing this bill more than the SCOTUS overturning it. The journey is often more important than the destination.

[Texasforever]

Repeat after me---there wouldn't be any strategy needed for overturning anything if the President would veto an unconstitutional bill in the first place

So it is your understanding of the law that once a president unilaterally declares a law unconstitutional and then vetoes it that bill is dead forever?

[RamsNo1]

He still did not get "paycheck protection" and "full disclosure" incorporated into the final bill. In fact, there will be more "undisclosed" money flowing around out there than ever before. Don't you see that politicians want the more secretive avenue to obtain campaign contributions while trying to look so noble about this "reform" bill?

[RamsNo1]

You keep implying that everything will be "honky-dorey" once the SCOTUS overturns this thing. As much as I hope for this, there is nothing in life that's a guarantee. Can you imagine the horror if everything goes wrong? What will people look at then? Maybe perhaps, that Bush signed it in the first place? Don't you see that the most important part of this whole issue is the bill signing? This seems to be the part of the discussion you keep avoiding which leads me to believe that you are just as troubled about this part as alot of the rest of us. Join the party, friend.