Posted on 03/25/2002 11:16:37 AM PST by Pay now bill Clinton
Bush Will Sign Campaign Finance Bill
Mon Mar 25,10:19 AM ET
SAN SALVADOR, El Salvador (Reuters) - President Bush (news - web sites) said on Sunday he would sign landmark campaign finance reform legislation with only a slight hesitation, reflecting his ongoing concerns about the measure.
The legislation to reduce the influence of money in politics won final congressional approval last week, and Bush has pledged to sign it soon.
The bill would ban unlimited contributions known as "soft money" to national political parties, limit such donations to state and local parties and restrict broadcast ads by outside groups shortly before elections.
Former independent counsel Kenneth Starr, whose investigation of Bill Clinton's sex life resulted in the president's impeachment in 1998, is to lead a legal challenge that will seek to knock down most of the measure as unconstitutional.
Bush said he felt the campaign bill did not fully address the need to require identification of who is funding so-called independent groups that introduce "scurrilous, untrue" television advertisements in the last days of a campaign, as he said happened to him in his 2000 presidential campaign.
"I've always thought that people who pump money into the political system, we ought to know who they are," he said.
Bush said that nonetheless the "bill is a better bill than the current system," but that some parts of it might not stand up to a court challenge.
BINGO!
All this wind and pee about not voting for Bush on '04 because of CFR is pure nonsense. These same 'patriots' who are yelling the loudest about the constitution being violated, will be the first one in line to vote straight R come election time.
Rove knows it, Dubya knows it and the D's know it...
He's doing well, considering the tough hand he's been dealt. Anyoen complaining ought to get more conservatives elected, IMHO, and then see what he does.
Are you psychic?
If the bill was passed over veto - Bush would at least save face, I think it will not pass over a veto - but we'll never find out will we?
Strong agreement from me on that point.
The issue is our freedom to express politcal dissent and our freedom of political association without fear of arrest by the federal government. This is why I have always been against a flag burning amendment.....
Congress has just passed (overwhelmingly, I might add) sweeping legislation that would make federal felons out of any of us associating with a group of like minded persons and mentions a candidate's NAME (either praise or criticism).
Our President has said he will sign it with no hesitiation. To rub salt into wounds, no one seems to give a flying f about the obvious contradiction to the first amendment. We need this legislation, they say.
I did not vote for the President because he was the lesser of 2 evils. I voted for him because I thought he was a man of integrity and many times he said "it's the right thing to do." Now, when it counts, "the right thing to do is to veto this legislation. I do not care how many more times it rears it's ugly head in Congress. The right thing to do is for our President to say to Congress "You have knowingly violated the 1st amendment. Fix it, then I will consider signing it. I will not sign anything I know to be a violation of my oath of office."
The POTUS alone can decide not to sign or veto - for whatever reason he ALONE sees fit.
Get it through your thick skull!
You are likely correct. The number of people who will swing to supporting Bush due to his handling of the war effort far outweighs the number of hardcore conservatives who will reject his RINO domestic agenda.
Of course this does give the likes of me the luxury to support a minor party candidate (and based on Bush's performance to date, I would) without fearing that I will elect a Democrat president by doing so.
Will the law be constitutional then?
No. It isn't now, and it won't be then. But none of that absolves a President of the responsibility to consider the constitutionality of a bill and act accordingly.
Brilliant, get nothing as opposed to 85%, and have big losses on national defense, tax cuts, the Second Amendment, and pro-life efforts.
I don't hate Bush yet, he still has time to get a grip.
Just because we do not agree on this does NOT mean that I am wrong. Nor does it mean that you are wrong. We just look at it from different perspectives.
I'd dissagree with that too, there are indeed absolutes
I don't draw lines in the sand; you do.
That's right, I do.
On some things I take a stand. I THOUGHT we'd elected a man who believed the same.
Especially with his(Bill's) selected quotes taken out of context.
Oh well, that's our Bill. He knows about taking something out of context more than anyone, especially when he prettys it up with his own special brand of HTML.
And a statement where he was saying there should be limits to what people could say about him USING HIS OWN NAME????? And specifically lies about him?
If you think there aren't limits on your freedom of speech, just post something that the moderators on this site don't like.
I am well aware of how things are "suppose to be" or how things would be in Utopia, but this ain't it. At least try to live in the real world.
It won't work any other way, will it?
AACK! Now we'll have to put up with 10,000 "Impeach the Shrub" threads! ;-D
Fighting the good fight, I see.
I hate to break it to everyone, but this "issue" ranks right up there with "What brand of mayo do you use?" in national importance.
As much as I hated it when the other side spun while Clinton was in office, I knew that I'd hate it even more when our own side did it under Bush. Well, I do.
I want to be on a side that actually gives a s--t about this nation. I guess that's just too much to ask these days, when the bars have been lowered to the point that it looks like we're in a limbo contest rather than talking about ideals that will make this nation the strongest it can be.
Raise the bars? The very idea... I should have my head examined. Bushbots will be by shortly to remind me.
You mean he still has time to act exactly like YOU want him to?
I am stunned, I tell ya. Just stunned. Of course, you disagree with me. If you ahd to acknowledge that there is more than one opinion than yours, you'd be totally irrelevant.
Not in Bill's world. But you also have to remember that is a world, IMHO, where the tin foil rules.
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.