Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Bush Will Sign Campaign Finance Bill
Yahoo! News ^ | Mar 25, 2002 | Reuters

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.

"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.


TOPICS: Breaking News; Constitution/Conservatism; Crime/Corruption; Front Page News; Government; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS:
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 181-200201-220221-240 ... 441-443 next last
To: Dane
I might add, under your theory why did the Founders task the President with signing the bill? You see him as a simple rubber stamp, who could easily be eliminated from the process if Congress were to send the bill directly to SCOTUS.
201 posted on 03/25/2002 12:58:52 PM PST by NittanyLion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 194 | View Replies]

To: Dane
Uh actually not, if that was true, there would be no need for a Supreme Court.

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.

202 posted on 03/25/2002 12:58:56 PM PST by OWK
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 194 | View Replies]

To: Howlin
Last attempt to crack open your thick skull.

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.

203 posted on 03/25/2002 12:59:22 PM PST by Triple
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 177 | View Replies]

To: Harrison Bergeron
Harrison, you then went on to tell me that if I don't see things the way you see them, I'm practicing moral relativism, which I would assume you don't take kindly to, and I would have to come down on the side of you thinking I am WRONG if I disagree with you.

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.

204 posted on 03/25/2002 1:00:29 PM PST by Howlin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 187 | View Replies]

To: Howlin
At the risk of repeating myself time after time, where EXACTLY
in the Constitution does it say that the POTUS can decide a
bill is unconstitional ON HIS OWN and just not sign it?

Are you really this slow, or are you just trying to keep a ruckas
going?

205 posted on 03/25/2002 1:00:40 PM PST by itsahoot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: Dane
Why not make up quotes...isn't the one on the first page of this site a made up one?
Oldcats
206 posted on 03/25/2002 1:00:49 PM PST by oldcats
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: Sir Gawain
BTW, I'm not saying I think that would be a GOOD reason to do it this way, I'm just saying I can understand that viewpoint.
207 posted on 03/25/2002 1:01:16 PM PST by Howlin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 184 | View Replies]

To: Maceman
Don't tell me to get over it because I don't intend to. Ever.

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.

208 posted on 03/25/2002 1:01:26 PM PST by angkor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]


209 posted on 03/25/2002 1:01:28 PM PST by Redcloak
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 203 | View Replies]

To: Howlin
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.

The opinion itself is not wrong, you are free to think whatever you choose. But it certainly is not the one the Founders held.

210 posted on 03/25/2002 1:01:46 PM PST by NittanyLion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 204 | View Replies]

To: Howlin
You don't see any good from letting the Supreme Court tell those creeps in Congress THEY wrote, lobbied, and passed an unconstitutional bill, as opposed to Bush saying it on TV, to the DEMS and the press who already think he stole the 2000 election?

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.

211 posted on 03/25/2002 1:01:48 PM PST by Sir Gawain
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 198 | View Replies]

To: Howlin
You don't see any good from letting the Supreme Court tell those creeps in Congress THEY wrote, lobbied, and passed an unconstitutional bill, as opposed to Bush saying it on TV, to the DEMS and the press who already think he stole the 2000 election?
Hell by that logic he should sign EVERYTHING congress passes

You didn't see Clinton worrying about the fact the public voted out the democrats and voted in the GOP control of congress when he vetoed bills

And how about SCOTUS tells congress AND Bush they are creeps for passing it
212 posted on 03/25/2002 1:02:38 PM PST by uncbob
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 198 | View Replies]

To: OWK
I know it, too. I believe he is wrong to sign it; I'm saying there can be more than one justification of it.

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.

213 posted on 03/25/2002 1:03:33 PM PST by Howlin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 191 | View Replies]

To: NittanyLion
The obvious answer is that the Founders intended for a defense of the Constitution by using depth. All three branches have a shot at eliminating unconstitutional legislation, not just the courts.

Precisely. Two down, one to go--I don't think the Founders would be happy.

214 posted on 03/25/2002 1:03:34 PM PST by Smile-n-Win
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 72 | View Replies]

To: boston_liberty
It is called the winning principle.
215 posted on 03/25/2002 1:04:04 PM PST by GoMonster
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Howlin
You don't see any good from letting the Supreme Court tell those creeps in Congress THEY wrote, lobbied, and passed an unconstitutional bill, as opposed to Bush saying it on TV, to the DEMS and the press who already think he stole the 2000 election?

Of course, if Bush were to sign the bill he'll be included in the group you describe as "creeps". Right?

216 posted on 03/25/2002 1:04:23 PM PST by NittanyLion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 198 | View Replies]

To: NittanyLion
Excuse me.........slight little detail to clear up.........IF the POTUS and the Hill ALL vote for a bill that is clearly unconstitutional, just HOW does it ever get to the SC?
217 posted on 03/25/2002 1:04:51 PM PST by Howlin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 195 | View Replies]

To: angkor
You are a closet liberal anyway. Enjoy.
218 posted on 03/25/2002 1:05:22 PM PST by GoMonster
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 208 | View Replies]

To: OWK
I'll admit it, he was wrong to do so on principles, but sometimes you win the war by losing a battle. Now I know that goes against the "we can have it all if we just really, really want it all" crowd, but it's true.

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.

219 posted on 03/25/2002 1:05:34 PM PST by Anitius Severinus Boethius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 181 | View Replies]

To: uncbob
Correct! And, now that you brought that up, what was it Chuckie Schumer went over there and told them not too long ago, that they were NOT to do something, but I can't remember what! Do you?
220 posted on 03/25/2002 1:06:04 PM PST by Howlin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 199 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 181-200201-220221-240 ... 441-443 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson