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]

See post 72.

[Texasforever]

Sorry post 73.

[carenot]

I might as well have voted for John McCain. The result is the same.
If we all voted for Gore results would be the same.

[Uncle Bill]

We need to get this on this side of the thread. Thanks.

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.

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

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 Administration Wants to Extend Immigration "Amnesty"

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

[carenot]

You can add me to that list.
Put me on the list, please.
Thanks

[deport]

Hey, them nasty EOs at it again.... LOL

Gosh I still haven't found this requirement statement that Brian refers to.

Jim: Here is what Bush said a year ago about what he would require for CFR, including:

[Texasforever]

Look, Buckley sent an e-mail that was ill-informed. Once that e-mail is taken out of the debate we can go on with the real issues. It is ironic that I found that executive order in response to all of those claiming that Bush had ignored all of Clinton's EOs. That too was a lie. If you are going to accuse people of a lie then at least have the decency to research it before you do. I am not letting this one go.

[rdb3]

Sheesh, no wonder the right has derservedly earned the nickname, "reactionaries".

It is my heartfelt opinion that were we to finally and totally lose America, we on the Right will have no one to blame but ourselves. Whether it be our politicians or our voting base, it will be our fault.

2004 will find America at the crossroads. We will have the choice for keeping America as America was intended to be under two scenarios: BALLOTS OR BALLISTICS.

The choice is ours.

[Ahban]

Re #73. President Bush did the right thing for all Americans on that issue. I applaud him for it. It was also the right thing for his party.

WHat I am looking for is all promises to be kept and for the right thing to be done regarldess of effect on parties.

[Texasforever]

WHat I am looking for is all promises to be kept and for the right thing to be done regarldess of effect on parties.

I see so you want to move the goal post.

[rdb3]

Outstanding! I'm right there with you.

[Texasforever]

Brian if you still post on this forum would you address this in regard to your e-mail to Jim. You will notice that Bush issued the EO in February and a month later sent his principles to the soon to be ex-majority leader Lott.

Four executive orders were issued by President Bush on February 17, 2001, which the Administration stated "are based on the principles of fair and open competition, neutrality in government contracting, effective and efficient use of tax dollars and the legal right of workers to be notified of how their dues may be used." Reacting to the reports, AFL – CIO President John Swenney issued a statement saying he was "appalled and outraged" by the decision to issue "four mean-spirited, anti-worker executive orders."

One order would require government contractors to notify employees of their rights under the U.S. Supreme Court's 1988 holding in Communications Workers v. Beck, 487 U.S. 735, "affirming the right of workers to be notified and object, if they so chose, to their union dues being used for purposes other than collective bargaining." Government contractors will be required to post notices informing union–represented workers of their rights under the Beck decision. A similar Executive order was signed in 1992 by the President's father, which was rescinded in early 1993 by former President Clinton.

[terilyn]

Thank you.

One other thing that President Bush did early on that nobody seems to remember is he cut off money to foreign countries for abortion programs.

But no, let's get Al Gore back. That will fix everything.

[LarryLied]

Government contractors will be required to post notices informing union–represented workers of their rights under the Beck decision.

Thanks for posting this. I knew Bush did something on Beck and Sweeney was squealing like a stuck pig. Shows what RATS are all about doesn't it?

Did you notice more than a few newbies on this thread outraged by Bush? I think they protest a little too much. The question for those of us who have fought this for years on FR and elsewhere is what to do now that is productive toward our goals, not to rant, rave, demoralize and tear down.

One thing I would like and Bush owes us is to spit out in clear language why he is doing this. No BS. If he feels he has to do it because of the war or he wants SCOTUS to decide or for any other reason, he should say so. What I don't want and will not accept is McCainical blather about "reform."

[Texasforever]

Until I am banned or until that e-mail is retracted I am not letting go of this one. It is just too damned blatant.

[leprechaun9]

I remember the speech that NSA Rice gave at the Republican Convention. She spoke of the experience of her father when he tried to register to vote and how the Democrats opposed his effort. She went on to say that her father never forgot that and that she didn't either.

I remind her of the treatment of Alan Keyes being removed in handcuffs from a campaign debate, while the other "RINO's" stood idly by and let it happen.

Well Ms. Rice, I won't forget that and I believe that Alan Keyes won't either!

[hchutch]

Gee, send a bad bill for a 6-3 (orbetter) smackdown. Kill the thing PERMANENTLY. Or do you like fighting this battle every time.

Some folks here need to think long-term on a lot of things. You will note that letter is addressed to Majority Leader Trent Lott (I'm trying NOT to go into hysterics over that phrase). Jim Jeffords changed everything. As MAJORITY LEADER, Lott could have forced a conference.

Face it, in the Senate, the President's hand sucks. We need to take the Senate back, get Harkin, Carnahan, Wellstone, Cleland, and Johnson out of the Senate, and keep Gordon Smith and Tim Hutchinson in. We have to get a big margin so Lincoln Chafee can't throw the Senate over to the Dems again.

We do not have 535 Tom Delays or Rush Limbaughs in Congress. We're not going to get everything we want when we want it.

My advice: Stop acting like three-year olds who did not get their way, and get working so we can throw the Dems out (we'll get the RINOs after we're done with the Dems).

[SpookBrat]

Beautiful posts friends. I call you my friends because I can trust you guys not to throw my family and me to the wolves with a "let's teach them a lesson" vote. Thank you for rationally defending our President with common sense.

"So, are we going to complain for the next eight months and then two more years and help get Hillary or Daschle or Edwards elected? I'm not. I love a good fight, but like the President, I choose my battles or I just look like an obstructionist."

Seems that way doesn't it? You know why? Because conservatives can be "all or nothing", "eat their own", "back stabbing", hysterical FOOLS!

President Bush is a good man. I may not agree with everything he does or understand it at the time. He has proven to me he is a brilliant, strategic politician. 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. They are lost and don't have a game plan. He has demolished anything they had to stand on. To me, that says plenty. I'm thrilled the Dem's are wetting their pants over my old governor. I will never abandon him or the Republican Party because I got my precious, little, conservative feelings hurt.

[GraniteStateConservative]

On offices that have runoffs (in many states ALL of 'em except President) we will have one that gets 5.1% and goes on to beat her in the run-off.

And the beauty of it is, when we win IT ACTUALLY MAKES A DIFFERENCE! A substantial difference. Unlike now, in which our only choice involves how fast socialism advances.

Thanks for helping to make my case. Now, get to http://www.constitutionparty.com and sign up!

How could that 5.1% win a run-off? The other 45% right of center vote will stay home because they are ideological purists like you. The liberal candidate still wins, but 95-5.

[Texasforever]

I just want the issues debated on the FACTS. I also want people to stop using the word liar when they are absolutely WRONG!. Debate CFR on its OWN merits NOT on fabricated or uninformed opinion and poor research. I would think that an attorney of Brian Buckley’s reputation would do his research a little better.