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 ... 161-180181-200201-220221-238 last
To: Texasforever
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.

For what it's worth, this is the only argument for Bush signing CFR that makes any sense to me.

221 posted on 03/23/2002 10:56:08 PM PST by Shethink13
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 218 | View Replies]

To: Shethink13
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.

The point is that Beck actually gave Union members prior restraint over paying their dues without the threat of losing membership. Beck stated that 79% of his dues were being used for support of the DNC and won the right to withhold 79% of his dues until the situation was corrected to his satisfaction. That has more direct impact than on the union than after the fact authorization.

222 posted on 03/23/2002 10:59:32 PM PST by Texasforever
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 220 | View Replies]

To: Shethink13
It goes to court, so who defends it? What will they argue against the constitution? Who will they be?
223 posted on 03/23/2002 11:04:56 PM PST by TLBSHOW
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 221 | View Replies]

To: Shethink13
One other thing. Unions being Unions are going to intimidate their members regardless. Written authorization OR a supreme court decision such as Beck, will hold little value to the poor member that goes against the grain. It takes a brave individual to risk his livelihood because of how his dues are spent.
224 posted on 03/23/2002 11:05:26 PM PST by Texasforever
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 220 | View Replies]

To: TLBSHOW
It goes to court, so who defends it? What will they argue against the constitution? Who will they be?

Ashcroft has no option but to defend. However, Ted Olsen can give an opinion as to what Ashcroft should argue. The Solicitor General is empowered to decide what cases should be defended and how to defend them. Solicitors General are listened to very carefully by the courts and it was a stroke of genius for McConnell to have tapped Starr who was Bush the first's solicitor general and a former Clerk in the Supreme Court.

225 posted on 03/23/2002 11:10:44 PM PST by Texasforever
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 223 | View Replies]

To: JumpinJackFlash
With views like what you shared with us in an earlier post, how long have you supported the democratic party and it's Clintonian morals and principles?

I take your comments as a personal insult. You disagree with someones opinion and another freeper( who takes his name from a song written by a couple of junkies) accuses you of having Clintonian morals.

Only on FR.

226 posted on 03/24/2002 4:28:41 AM PST by n.y.muggs
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 185 | View Replies]

To: FreedominJesusChrist
I can't provide title and section on that law. It's just what I heard. If you learn anything, please share it with me.
227 posted on 03/24/2002 7:43:00 AM PST by Barnacle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 135 | View Replies]

To: FreedominJesusChrist
Indeed.
228 posted on 03/24/2002 7:44:59 AM PST by Barnacle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 150 | View Replies]

To: Texasforever
That has more direct impact than on the union than after the fact authorization.

As I understand it, paycheck protection would come PRIOR to the authorization. The union leaders would have to get permission from each individual member BEFORE they spend the money.

229 posted on 03/24/2002 9:56:57 AM PST by Shethink13
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 222 | View Replies]

To: Barnacle
If that law is out there, I will find it and let you know. I haven't heard before that Illinois has a spoils law, but wouldn't be surprised if it were to the contrary. I actually think that this law will be pretty easy to find if it is out there. :)
230 posted on 03/24/2002 11:06:03 AM PST by FreedominJesusChrist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 227 | View Replies]

To: Texasforever
Thanks. I forgot about that and was so happy to have heard of the EO on the Beck decision. "Paycheck Protection" is a good thing...
231 posted on 03/25/2002 5:51:15 AM PST by eureka!
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 81 | View Replies]

To: Dane
"Well at least you didn't lie about your screen name. "

Just because you might not believe in the truth doesn't make it a lie. Republicans will NEVER deliver your freedoms back to you. NEVER. I've seen proof of this with my own eyes from WATCHING what they've DONE, rather than your preference of constantly BELIEVING what they've SAID.

232 posted on 03/25/2002 5:51:23 PM PST by Uncle Sham
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

Comment #233 Removed by Moderator

To: JumpinJackFlash
You are an A$$Hole!!!
234 posted on 03/27/2002 12:28:39 PM PST by n.y.muggs
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 233 | View Replies]

Comment #235 Removed by Moderator

To: swheats
Is the thrill is gone yet?
236 posted on 04/05/2002 5:30:49 AM PST by Scholastic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 174 | View Replies]

To: Jim Robinson
I expect rational people to reverse their positions if new events or circumstances warrant. Do you have any doubt that if Congress provided Bush a bill satisfying all the priorities he outlined in the letter that he'd sign it happily? If he received a bill authorizing school vouchers for private religious schools, he'd probably have some Constitutional concerns about that as well, and I'd expect him to sign that one too. There has never been unlimited speech rights within campaign activities .... the times, places, means and financing of stumping is strictly regulated. The NRA is worthy of support, and they have a vital role in working in the state and local levels to preserve our 2nd Amendement Rights ... but if they are blocked from an 11th hour voter infotainmentfest and junk mail annoyathon, so be it. It's just another rule like the capricious limits on individual hard money donations to candidates, or the restrictions on campaigning on election day or on publicly owned property.
237 posted on 04/05/2002 5:58:25 AM PST by ArneFufkin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Scholastic
Not at all. I'm not planning on leaving the country or anything like that. We'll get through this period also. How about you?
238 posted on 04/05/2002 7:29:10 AM PST by swheats
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 236 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 161-180181-200201-220221-238 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