President Bush Outlines Campaign Reform Principles

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

[Shethink13]

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.

[Texasforever]

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.

[TLBSHOW]

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

[Texasforever]

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.

[Texasforever]

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.

[n.y.muggs]

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.

[Barnacle]

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.

[Barnacle]

Indeed.

[Shethink13]

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.

[FreedominJesusChrist]

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. :)

[eureka!]

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...

[Uncle Sham]

"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.

[n.y.muggs]

You are an A$$Hole!!!

[Scholastic]

Is the thrill is gone yet?

[ArneFufkin]

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.

[swheats]

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?