STATEMENT OF U.S. SENATOR MITCH McCONNELL ON CAMPAIGN FINANCE REFORM

U.S. Senate ^ | March 20, 2002 | Senator McConnell, the Defender of the Constitution

[harpo11]

Senator Tom Daschle Say NO SPEAKY
UNDER PENALTY OF THE CFR LAW

Thank God for reasonable men of honor, character and Constitutional Champions like the good Senator Mitch McConnell. I'm going to ride that tiger with you all the way to the Supreme Court and happily hear the man with the gold stripes on the sleeves of his judicial robes rip CFR asunder.

[Faraday]

First Amendment bump.

[Graewoulf]

Well said.

[McGavin999]

Thanks for the link. What would be really funny is if the FEC would rule that, due to the complexity and confusion of the new CFR law, there will be absolutely NO advertising allowed 60 days prior to the election since it's impossible for the FEC to discern what is legal and what is not. :o)

Talk about a bunch of stunned politicians!

[Texasforever]

This is the first comprehensive analysis I have seen. I wish it had come out sooner. This is indeed a bad bill if Mitch is being factual and I am sure he is. Bush should veto the bill. If not this analysis should be the first brief filed with the court challenge. I am wondering what advice Bush is getting from Ted Olsen on this.

[jwalsh07]

Ted Olsen is on our side, I'm sure. This one has Karl Rove's fingerprints all over it.

[jwalsh07]

By the way, the media has already begun to hang the "read my lips....." millstone around President Bush's neck. Why they couldn't think two moves ahead on this one is something that I don't understand. As F16flyer said, it is enigmatic. I don't get it.

[Texasforever]

Ted Olsen is on our side, I'm sure

It was more than a rhetorical question. If he is “on our side” then he, as Solicitor General whose main function is to vet the constitutional soundness of legislation a president is asked to sign, must either recommend a veto OR recommend that the Executive branch not join the defense of the bill before the court. This is going to get extremely complicated if Bush signs this.

[Texasforever]

If you want to see something hilarious see The liberal analysis

[NittanyLion]

By the way, the media has already begun to hang the "read my lips....." millstone around President Bush's neck.

I guess you saw Fox News Sunday this morning, huh? Bush isn't going to win with the media on this one; he may as well veto the bill and take the heat while getting his way.

[PRND21]

Thanks for the bump.

[PRND21]

Thanks for the bump.

[goldstategop]

Don Feder has an article out Monday in which he argues the Bush White apparently wants a Republican Party with good looks and no substance. None of those pesky conservatives to deal with. Seen in this light then, the President's statement of support for a blatantly unconstitutional act like CFR suddenly makes a lot of sense. When it comes to domestic conservative issues, the President and his advisors have decided being Rats in drag is the next best thing. Along with spurning the party's activist base on issues of concern to them. We'll see how much THAT particular strategy helps the GOP this year and in 2004.

[Smile-n-Win]

REFORM THE MEDIA

That is indeed what needs to be done!

[Smile-n-Win]

No, the point of the article is that CFR sets up an outside of politics power broker to hold the purse strings. Clinton already had the organization in place.

Gosh, that would be a nightmare!

[Smile-n-Win]

At no time has any member of either body offered even the slightest hint of corruption.

This is what I find the most ironic about this whole unconstitutional CFR. Whoever supports it is makes this ominously self-revealing statement: "I know politicians must be corrupt, because I am corrupt myself. Politicians need to be protected from themselves by--[guess whom]--the Government!"

Bribing is done in the greatest possible secrecy, so there is no way for politicians, especially opponents, to know about one another's corruption affairs. (Unless the scandal becomes public, but that has hardly been a case with a majority of Congressmen.) Presuming without proof that your opponents are corrupt, while maintaining the claim that you yourself are honest, is in hypocritical contempt of the presumption of innocence. By trying to use your own corruptness as proof of your opponents' corruptness, you incriminate yourself, and prove nothing about your opponent. By saying that politicians are corrupt by nature, while being a politician yourself, you admit to being corrupt by nature, and you even make no apologies about it.

It was a good idea from Senator McConnell to include this line in his speech. He made it quite clear to his fellow Senators: If you vote for this unconstitutional bill, you admit to being corrupt. And lo, 49 Democrats and 11 RINOs still voted for the unconstitutional bill.

People seem not to see that their opinion of the world is also a confession of character.
- Ralph Waldo Emerson

[Las Vegas Dave]

BUMP

[Commiewatcher]

Long read alert! Save for later.

[RAT Patrol]

AMEN!

[Smile-n-Win]

The bill is written with "separability." What parts do you think will be declared unconstitutional? Will what's left favor the 'rats?

Some people are hoping that the restrictions on free speech will be scrapped, while the increase in the hard money limit from $1000 to $2000 will be left intact. That would be a good net result for Republicans, though the Washington Times is not so confident: see this thread.