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

[Texasforever]

Full disclosure is in the final draft of the bill. Read it. What bush did was recind a Clinton EO that literally unconstitutionally overturned a Supreme Court decision. That took Paycheck protection off the table as a sore point. Look, I don't like CFR OR the 245I part of the immigration Reform Act. I have sent my e-mails voicing my opposition BUT I also despise the agendas going on around here for the last two weeks over these issues. The misrepresentation and downright lies being told about what Bush said or what he promised or what he believes cannot go unanswered or the entire site looks like a bunch of raving pitchfork wielding bumpkins. Make no mistake this site is known to the Whitehouse and when it sees its positions distorted beyond all recognition they will not listen to a word we say and it sure as hell does not “scare“ them. If you have the facts to back your position the embellishment is not required.

[Uncle Bill]

The torture of Bushbology.

"Is" was simple.

"Bush will sign a bill that he thinks is unconstitutional on the theory that the courts will throw it out, even though his administration will have to argue that they shouldn't throw it out, even though the administration really wants the courts to throw it out."

Just cross out Clinton's name and put in Jorge Bush. Illegal amnesty

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.

Illegal amnesty

Government News Keywords: ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION, CITIZENSHIP, SOVEREIGNTY
Source: The Pittsburgh Tribune Review
Published: Thursday, October 26, 2000 Author: editorial
Posted on 10/26/2000 07:27:11 PDT by Willie Green

For education and discussion only. Not for commercial use.

President Bill Clinton is demonstrating his disdain for the responsibility of U.S. citizenship by promoting legislation that would award amnesty to millions of illegal aliens. Joined by congressional Democrats, Mr. Clinton would simply allow those individuals who broke the law in entering this country to be forgiven their transgressions.

So adamant is Clinton about the amnesty that he is willing to tie up the federal budget over the issue. Clinton has attached the amnesty measure to appropriations legislation, obscuring the amnesty issue from public hearings and providing no opportunity for any study of its impact.

But the amnesty cheapens the efforts of those millions who have immigrated to this country by legal means and have become constructive citizens. It would reward lawlessness and subterfuge and add a tremendous financial burden to border states. According to one study, the net cost of a similar amnesty in 1986 was more than $78 billion.

Even worse, an amnesty would spark another wave of illegal immigration. It's estimated that 3 million illegal immigrants poured across the borders after the 1986 amnesty.

Tying the amnesty to federal appropriations is a political ploy designed to appeal to immigrant voters in those border states. But those voters should see through the Democrats' posturing and demand diligent control of our borders.

The United States always has welcomed the teeming masses, yearning to be free. But the nation has a duty to make sure that those who enter are willing to accept the responsibility of that freedom. Granting amnesty to those who have ignored the law of the land mocks that freedom.

"President of the United States Wants To Grant Amnesty Up To 4 Million Illegal Aliens"

AN AMNESTY BY ANY OTHER NAME IS STILL AN AMNESTY

---

A DAY IN THE LIFE OF GEORGE W. BUSH

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.

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

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

LIAR - George W. Bush

---

George W. Bush: No Amnesty for Immigrants - "There's going to be no amnesty"

Bush says he won't legalize illegal immigrants

Bush Administration Wants to Extend Immigration "Amnesty"

Bush Proposing "Amnesty" for Illegal Aliens

INS Commissioner James Ziglar addressed a meeting of the National Immigration Forum on Friday, where he reiterated the Bush administration's support for an amnesty benefiting illegal aliens from Mexico and support for the Section 245(i)

Immigration "Amnesty" Passes House - Fox News

Congress OKs "Amnesty" for Illegal Aliens

House clears "amnesty" bill under pressure from Bush

President Bush yesterday called on the Senate to pass a bill that would grant "amnesty" to hundreds of thousands of illegal aliens

Darkness By Design For "Amnesty" Move

"There are more than 500,000 undocumented immigrants in the country who are eligible to become legal permanent residents" - George W. Bush

AMNESTY by BUSH - The Truth about Section 245(i)

INS Memo: Sec. 245(i) filings

Section 245 of the Act allows an alien to apply for adjustment of status to that of a lawful permanent resident (LPR) while in the United States if certain conditions are met. The alien must have been inspected and admitted or paroled, be eligible for an immigrant visa and admissible for permanent residence, and, with some exceptions, have maintained lawful nonimmigrant status. The alien must also not have engaged in unauthorized employment.
Section 245(i) of the Act allows an alien to apply to adjust status under section 245 notwithstanding the fact that he or she entered without inspection, overstayed, or worked without authorization.
LINK.

How Do I Benefit From Section 245(i)?

Our immigration laws allow qualified individuals to enter the United States as lawful permanent residents ("green card" holders) after they obtain immigrant visas from a consulate or embassy outside the United States or, for many immigrants already lawfully in the United States, through a process called "adjustment of status." If you entered the United States unlawfully, if you entered with permission but did not stay in lawful status, or if you worked without permission, you normally would have to leave the United States in order to apply for an immigrant visa. Special rules under section 245(i) may allow you to apply to adjust status without leaving the United States.

You might need section 245(i) if you:

• Entered the U.S. without being inspected by an INS official.
  
• Stayed in the U.S. longer than allowed by INS.
  
• Entered the U.S. as a worker on an aircraft or ship (crewman).
  
• Entered the U.S. as a "Transit Without Visa."
  
• Failed to continuously maintain a lawful status since your entry into the US.
  
• Worked in the U.S. without INS permission.
  
• Entered as an "S" nonimmigrant (relates to witnesses about criminal or terrorism matters).
  
• Are seeking a work-related visa and are out of status at the time of filing the application to adjust status (Form I-485).
  
• Worked in the U.S. while being an "unauthorized alien."

LINK

"Indeed, during the immigration debate of 1984 we suggested an ultimate goal to guide passing policies--a constitutional amendment: "There shall be open borders." - July 2, 2001 - ROBERT L. BARTLEY - Editor of The Wall Street Journal
"Another amnesty for undocumented aliens is already in the air"

George W. Bush In Firm Agreement With Communist Party:

Communist Party USA - Proposed Resolution against Racism and for Immigrant Rights

A] Open unlimited immigration into the USA - Jorge W. Bush - Open Borders

B] Compulsory bi-lingual education for all adults and their families of whatever country or cultural background. Federal prohibition of " English Only" - English, Huh? Bush firmly rejected “English-only,” which has caused problems among Hispanics. “I support English-plus, not English-only,” said Bush.
“English-only says to me that if Hispanic happens to be your heritage, you’re not part of the process.”

C] Extension of all existing labor and workplace protection laws, and the right to redress under them for all immigrant workers, documented or not. Bush measure to be introduced in Congress that grants Illegal Aliens the same rights in the workplace as U.S. citizens.

D] Support for the AFL-CIO policy on amnesty, and a call for a major AFL-CIO drive in all minority communities, and that consciously strategies to avoid any attempts to "whipsaw" one community against another. George W. Bush or Bill Clinton, take your pick.

In Mexico, Daschle, Gephardt give strongest support yet to more open borders, immigration reform

"President of the United States Wants To Grant Amnesty Up To 4 Million Illegal Aliens"

George W. Bush: No Amnesty for Immigrants - "There's going to be no amnesty"
"READ MY LIPS"

George W. Bush Doesn't Need No Stinking Polls
NOTE: How George W. Bush Uses Polls

Jorge W. Bush Was Just Kidding - Bush Administration Wants to Extend Immigration "Amnesty"

"Bush Presiona Por La 245(i)"

[TLBSHOW]

The truth is, this is no agenda. Bush was boxed in by the rats using enron to do it. The only way out for Bush and there is only one. He vetos it and tells the people why. That is it. Anything less is worthless. Rush is right and Bush knows what he has to do this week. Veto it.

If he signs this bill as an old friend said to me, he is Finished and the conservatives will send him packing in 2004. Just like the republicans on the list that voted for it. Who I think need to be really freep but good.

[TLBSHOW]

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.

Did he sign away your free speech? Your post makes no sense what so ever.

[Texasforever]

If he signs this bill as an old friend said to me, he is Finished and the conservatives will send him packing in 2004. Just like the republicans on the list that voted for it. Who I think need to be really freep but good.

No they won't TLB. He will lose a few and gain a few. This is not a deal killer with most of the country. I also don't think the Bush gives a "rats behind" about being re-elected. He is not that driven and never has been and he truly does what he thinks is right OR business like. In some ways his only secret reason for running in the first place was to vindicate his father. He approaches government with an entirely different perspective of any President we have seen in our lifetimes. You have to remember. when it came to the Bush family it was Jeb that was groomed for the presidency and Jeb is a politician through and through. GW was a shock to everyone including his own family and he was a very reluctant candidate. However this war is something that he has taken very personally and he will see it to some kind of conclusion. I will make a future bet with you. If this bill is signed and the court upholds it, the first election it is applied to will have as many attack ads as ever right up to poll closing.

[TLBSHOW]

I was not talking about the war. Now that you mention it. Unleash the war on the ones trying to kill the jews and us and let Israel destroy them all. That is how they win and us, too.

[RamsNo1]

Are you actually implying that conservatives have the same principles as liberals? Haven't you noticed already that our principles matter more to us than people? Just watch conservative pundits on TV who are unhappy with Bush.

[RamsNo1]

You seem to have some extraordinary insight into the President and the inner workings of his mind. Are you a family member? Is there some deep dark secret that only you are privvy to explain all this? Oh, come on, please let me know.

[TLBSHOW]

If he/she does know Bush, they need to have a long talk with President Bush. Veto it this week.

[Texasforever]

You seem to have some extraordinary insight into the President and the inner workings of his mind. Are you a family member? Is there some deep dark secret that only you are privvy to explain all this? Oh, come on, please let me know.

No, when he came out of nowhere and beat Ann Richards I started paying close attention to him and researching his place in the Bush "dynasty". I also had the advantage of watching him closely for 6 years a Governor. He is a shrewd business man and approaches government differently than a politician. His best skill is the ability to do cost benefit analysis before taking action. The best example was his quote about the war in which he said "I am not shooting a 3 million dollar missile into an empty tent". That is the way he conducts himself, he did it in Texas and I am not surprised he is doing it now.

[TLBSHOW]

Then stop while you are way behind.

[Texasforever]

Then stop while you are way behind.

I'll let you know when I'm behind. I have just lapped you and you think you are ahead. lol

[TLBSHOW]

Will he veto it as he should? If the answer is no. Then you really should stop. The choir is not singing that tune. Called Surrender free speech. What I think will happen, he will veto it this week on national television.

[Texasforever]

Will he veto it as he should? If the answer is no.

He will probably sign the bill. It will NOT hurt him and the 1st amendment violations will be struck down. You are overwrought and will come to your senses over time.

[Shethink13]

2) legislation to require unions to obtain authorization from each dues-paying worker before spending those dues on activities unrelated to collective bargaining.

(Done by executive order)

Wrong! Not done by executive order. The executive order merely reinstates the enforcement of the Beck decision, which simply states that a union worker has a right to be informed and object to his dues being used for certain political purposes. In reality this means nothing...so, a union worker objects and the union boss thugs say, your objection is duly noted, proceed with the big donations to the Dems.

It is a far cry from the union bosses actually having to get written permission from the members to use their dues for political purposes. This provision was either left out or voted down in the Senate as a "poison pill" to passing CFR.

Since you are so interested in having all the true facts, just thought you'd like to be made aware...

[TLBSHOW]

So here is what you think he will say? I have signed this bill today with the expressed purpose of helping clean up the mess that reform will fix. I do have concerns about it with reguard to free speech but what the heck I will sign it and let God sort it out? Here is what I feel is wrong with it but I signed it today to get it over with.

Point is why sign it?

[Texasforever]

Read the EO it is there on post #73. Then read the Beck decision and the "rights" that decision laid out for members withholding a portion of their dues equal to the percentage the Union uses for the objectionable purposes. Why would Clinton make an end run around a Supreme Court decision if the Beck case was a toothless tiger? Either know your facts or don’t try to argue them.

On April 13, 1992, in what many consider to be nothing more than an act of political opportunism, President Bush issued Executive Order 12800, which requires all federal contractors to inform their employees of their "Beck rights." The order stems from a 1988 U.S. Supreme Court opinion, Communication Workers of America v. Beck, in which the Court declared that employees forced to pay union dues under the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) do not have to contribute to a union's partisan political activities. The Communication Workers of America had been using as much as 79 percent of Harry Beck's dues for such activities, almost all in support of Democratic party candidates.

[Texasforever]

Point is why sign it?

Because to veto it only postpones it. Do you think McCain or his doppelgangers will give up until the courts decide one way or the other? This is the holy grail of "reformers". Until the courts shut them down the monster will rise at every administration and by then the favorable parts of the bill will be long gone.

[TLBSHOW]

One take anyways.

[Shethink13]

Read the EO it is there on post #73. Then read the Beck decision and the "rights" that decision laid out for members withholding a portion of their dues equal to the percentage the Union uses for the objectionable purposes. Why would Clinton make an end run around a Supreme Court decision if the Beck case was a toothless tiger? Either know your facts or don’t try to argue them.

I was merely trying to point out the fallacy of your claim. The EO does NOT equal the stated goal for CFR by Bush, which is written consent by a union member, BEFORE, the fact. A noble goal - and one much more effective.

Would you happen to have the statistics as to how much money was returned to union members during the year when the original EO by Bush Sr was signed? I don't have them myself, but I would be willing to bet it is so puny as to be totally insignificant.