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.
So you are suggesting then, that the legislative and executive branches are under no obligation to even TRY to adhere to the constitution, cause the good old SCOTUS is there.
No wonder people don't take you seriously.
Bush can veto for any reason he sees fit. One really good reason is the constitutionality of the bill, if Bush thinks its unconstitutional, he has the sole authority to uphold his oath of office and veto the bill.
Earlier in the thread you acknowledged these facts and stated with certainty, that the congress would over-ride so a veto was a waste of time.
How are you so certain?
Don't you tink that Bush would save face with conservatives if this trash passed over his veto, instead of his endorsement?
Triple, out.
My point is just because you don't like the things I say or disagree with my opinions -- which somebody along the way in this thread pointed out are MY GOD GIVEN RIGHTS -- then somehow I'm wrong.
Are you really this slow, or are you just trying to keep a ruckas
going?
During November 2000, I freeped "Cheney's house," sent faxes out the wazoo, and contributed $500 to the recount efforts.
What was I thinking? With his in-your-face immigration outrages, and now this immoral assault on the Bill Of Rights, GWB has completely betrayed this conservative.
I will most certainly vote against him in 2004.
The opinion itself is not wrong, you are free to think whatever you choose. But it certainly is not the one the Founders held.
Howlin, we're thinking on two totally different levels here. That's the problem. You're thinking political strategy, which is possibly something that could pay off for Bush by him doing this. I'm thinking Constitutionality and putting the preservation of the Founding Documents above politics. I know, I know, I'm idealistic. Maybe politics is not for me.
Just because you and I believe it's unconstitutional and he shouldn't sign it, doesn't mean it's the correct political thing to do.
Unless you don't ever want to hold the Senate and House and White House again.
Precisely. Two down, one to go--I don't think the Founders would be happy.
Of course, if Bush were to sign the bill he'll be included in the group you describe as "creeps". Right?
The portions of this bill that are the most damaging to free speech will never withstand a Constitutional challenge, so why are we disturbed about them? This is a Pyrrhic victory at best for the Democrats. Look at it this way:
1) Elections coming up. With the Republicans doing even or better than the Democrats on traditional Democratic issues (education, health care, etc.) the Democrats need an issue to scare the voters with. Danged economy is rebounding, so that's a wash. I know! Campaign Finance Reform, George will never sign that or he'll damage his base!
2) CFR bill looks like it will pass both houses of Congress, so the Democrats drool in anticipation. But what!?! Bush sign's it!?!
3) Democrats now have no national issue to run on, and George can say, "Hey, I gave you CFR, but the doggone Supreme Court shot down a bunch of the restrictions."
4) Republicans re-gain the Senate, build a lead in the House, Jeffords is sent to the back of the line, and Bush can push his agenda with gusto.
Now I know many do not like this, but it's the truth. Some have a fear of success, some think all government is contemptable including the one established in the Constitutution, and some just like to complain. Get elected President, then you can veto whatever you like.
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.