Bush Will Sign Campaign Finance Bill

Yahoo! News ^ | Mar 25, 2002 | Reuters

[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.

"I won't hesitate" signing it, Bush said at a joint news conference with Salvadoran President Francisco Flores as the president wrapped up a four-day trip to Latin America. "It will probably take about three seconds to get to the W, I may hesitate on the period, and then rip through the Bush."

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.

[JustAnAmerican]

"The Repubs will benefit as they are better at raising hard money. And if the ad ban stays in, that ain't too bad.. keeps the ACLU, Trial Lawyers, Unions, Sierra Club, Teachers Unions, and NAACP quiet from August-November... not a bad deal if you ask me.

Doesn't stop the "Media Elite", (you know the folks that have the power to convince most of the viewing public), from running anti-candidate pieces(Def. Anti-Republican pieces).

[NittanyLion]

Game, set, match...

[Howlin]

But when you subject your opinions to the Constitution, it can be said that there is one right answer.

You'll have to excuse me if I don't depend on you guys for ANY interpretations of ANYTHING, even the work of The Founding Fathers. There is no WAY your slant doesn't enter into how you read it. If you deny it, you're just not telling the truth.

[Sir Gawain]

I usually don't waste my time on these threads.

[Howlin]

See there, that's why you get in so many arguemnts. You see victories where there aren't any.

[Harrison Bergeron]

"Much to your dismay I am sure, just because we don't agree with you doesn't make the rest of us wrong."

There's the "moral relativism" I was talking about. It's exactly the same line we hear from the fringe left wing when they are criticized for "exceeding societal norms."

[Dane]

I have a question. If Bush was walking down the sidewalk and took an unexpected hard right turn, whose nose would break first...Dane's or Howlin's?

Gee Fred, maybe I would be just out of the way, with my head not cluttered by the tin foil you seem to be so fond of.

[Tuxedo]

Yeah, except their viewership is so pathetic, no one will hear them anyway. And if they're dumb enough to believe what Dan Blather has to say... maybe we need an amendment to add mental competence to the requirements to vote. The President has the bully-pulpit.. and one complaint I have is he seems wishy-washy in using it.

[Sir Gawain]

See there, that's why you get in so many arguemnts. You see victories where there aren't any.

So why do you get in so many arguments? Don't answer that. I'll be happy with just an answer to my question in #140.

[Howlin]

We can't all be contrarians.

[NittanyLion]

You'll have to excuse me if I don't depend on you guys for ANY interpretations of ANYTHING, even the work of The Founding Fathers. There is no WAY your slant doesn't enter into how you read it. If you deny it, you're just not telling the truth.

What slant do you think my opinion has? I campaigned and voted for Bush in 2000, and he'll get my vote again in 2004. As far as policy such as this, I just call 'em according to the Constitution.

As far as interpretation, one need only read the plain text posted on this thread - no interpretation necessary.

[Howlin]

There's the "moral relativism" I was talking about.

Please explain to me how, if I disagree with you, I am wrong?

[itsahoot]

who will be voting for George W. Bush in 2004 no matter what he does.?

I think you left off the question mark at the end of that sentence.

[Pokey78]

For 8 years, Ronald Reagan pushed for line item veto authority. After it was passed (by a Republican Congress and signed into law by Bubba), SCOTUS declared it unconstitutional.

Was President Reagan trying to knowingly subvert the Constitution all of those years?

[Sir Gawain]

Don't lie. If you disagree with Bush, that makes you a Bush hater. Come on, tell the truth. You're a Bush hater, aren't you?

[NittanyLion]

I usually don't waste my time on these threads.

As evidenced by your devastating reply on this one. Quick and to the point.

[Howlin]

Ah, isn't that what we all come here for? Are the women folks ALL suppose to only post on the fashion threads?

[Sir Gawain]

Was President Reagan trying to knowingly subvert the Constitution all of those years?

That depends. Did he ever say "I have doubts about the Constitutionality of this, but I'll sign it anyway."?

[OWK]

We can't all be contrarians.

Yes... some are contractually bound to support the man, no matter WHAT the hell he does.

[Howlin]

Don't smear Ronald Reagan; they'll get you; but Bush is OKAY.