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.

[Jhoffa_]

Uh I can't do "man in the street" interviews in China, Cuba, or Iraq. They don't have a Supreme Court to redress their grievances

They don't need one to protect their speach.

Seeing as how they don't have a First Amendment.

..and a Court that can finally put nutty ideas such as banning politcal ads 60 days before an election to rest forever.

A SC knockdown will do no such thing.

The President & Congress can draft and sign Unconstitutional bills till the end of time, and probably will untill and unless they start honoring the oath they took.

Of course, before we allow it to reach our last line of defence we could veto it, but that is bad theater and neglects the "overall political picture"

[Jhoffa_]

Bush loves baseball. It seems to me that the strategy of playing your posistion well enters into the calculation here.

Playing games with out right's, yeah.. I would say that analogy fit's perfectly.

Gambling is closer, but other forms of gaming shouldn't be excluded.

[Congressman Billybob]

The main thing wrong with your scenario -- Bush vetos, Congress overrides, Supreme Court strikes -- is the math. Look at the votes in the House and Senate. Neither one was close to the two-thirds required for an override. And the Reps. and Senators who stuck with the Constitution and voted against the bill are the precise ones who would also vote to uphold a Bush veto.

Nice argument, but it doesn't fit the facts.

Billybob

[Dane]

A SC knockdown will do no such thing.(put the issue of ad bans to rest)

Uh it did for the line item veto.

[VRWC_minion]

Bush signs it and it is overturned he looks JUST as dumb as Congress

That is silly. He is on record that parts of it are questionable. Only those who defend it will be seen as being dumb if anyone remembers in six weeks.

[NittanyLion]

I'm willing to let the politicos make the judgments. They're pretty much above my pay level.

Is that what you said during the Clinton Administration?

[barker]

Been real busy Bush bashing since you joined today haven't you? Get kicked out of DU or did you just end up here by mistake?

[Howlin]

I don't recall ever discussing legislation during the Clinton Administration; first of all, I don't recall any he passed; and secondly, I was here discussing his LEGAL problems.

[NittanyLion]

Bush loves baseball. It seems to me that the strategy of playing your posistion well enters into the calculation here. Right now Bush believes he has a strong outfield (The Supreme Court). If someone hits a high fly does Bush chase after it personally or does he let the outfield cover it ?

I'm more of a football guy. It seems to me that the strategy of playing your position well enters into the calculation here. Right now Bush believes he has a strong free safety in his secondary. If a receiver runs a crossing route, does he try to stay with his man or just assume the safety will pick up the coverage before the QB hits the receiver in stride? It appears the latter, if he signs the bill.

These analogies are fun, even if utterly pointless.

[Jhoffa_]

It did wonders for the Brady Bill also.

And that's why you are gambling by allowing this to come full circle.

If you want to repel an invasion Dane, you begin in the field.

You don't wait and slug it out on your doorstep.

And there is STILL nothing to keep this spectre from coming back after a Supreme Court blow off.

As long as we are ignoring the oath to uphold the Constitution, as long as we are writing legslation for brownie points, as long as we are scared to look "bad" in the media for opposing Unconstitutional laws and as long as the media treats people who trash the BOR as heros there will be an incentive to pass more "smart politics" type laws..

Counting, of course.. on the SC to play "goalie" and prevent any "real damage" from being done.

[itsahoot]

Huh, then why do we have a Supreme Court?

Maybe to settle disputes about the constitutionality of laws
after they become laws?

I used to think the story we told about selling the dumb kid
rabbit pellets for smart pills was just a myth.

[NittanyLion]

I don't recall ever discussing legislation during the Clinton Administration; first of all, I don't recall any he passed; and secondly, I was here discussing his LEGAL problems.

Those legal problems were for the politicos. They're at a higher pay rate than any of us.

[Jhoffa_]

A better question might be: "Why do we have an oath?"

[Howlin]

I don't think I'm above discussing CRIMES. There's not one being committed here.

[Theodore R.]

Maybe G.W. dances to the tune of Karl Rove, Karen Hughes, Andy Card, and Marc Racicot. When they sing "How Great Thou Art," he thinks they're singing about HIM. Where are G.W. "core principles"? I think he forgot to pack them when he last left Crawford, TX.

[NittanyLion]

I don't think I'm above discussing CRIMES.

Because you feel you have a relatively good understanding of the legal system and right/wrong? That's the same understanding all of us should have about the Constitution and the lawmaking process. And when either of those processes is being violated, we are right to hold those people's feet to the fire.

[Dane]

As long as we are ignoring the oath to uphold the Constitution, as long as we are writing legslation for brownie points, as long as we are scared to look "bad" in the media for opposing Unconstitutional laws and as long as the media treats people who trash the BOR as heros there will be an incentive to pass more "smart politics" type laws..

Whatever Jhoffa. Pontificate all you want, but I would rather see the ad bans from CFR finally put to rest than see it raise it's head for the next 20 years.

We are going to have to agree to disagree.

[BlackbirdSST]

"the job of deciding constitutionality of bills IS the job of the United States Supreme Court" by Howlin.
I'm glad you brought that point up.


I would refer you to a couple of dead white guy's quoted in #45 above, by michigander, and subtley point out that howlin is dead wrong.

I DO however urge everyone to remember the BIGGEST threat to the United States is the terrorists responsible for 9/11.
Why is an outside threat deemed any worse than an internal threat? An attack on the Constitution, almost daily I might add, is just as devasting to this country than any islamic nutcase. Terrorism is not in itself a power strong enough to bring this country down. Continued flicks of the bic on the Constitution will bring this country down.

There are several "domestic" issues that I have disagreements with BUT in my opinion President Bush is still the best Commander-in-Chief that this country has seen in a long time. I urge everyone to remain steadfast in their support of the Commander-in-Chief and the war effort. "UNITED WE STAND, DIVIDED WE FALL" has special meaning during a time of war. The handling of the war?, will be decided on it's own merits. Should we expect a continued wholesale destruction of the Constitution, just to remain a loyal party hack? Can W not manage a domestic agenda, and a war front? He's got time to gain foriegn support for flooding our borders, surely he has time to read the 1st Amd.? I did not vote for him to shred the remaining Freedoms I had when he took his oath, on some false pretense that the USSC has the final say so on what's Constitutional, hell I'm still trying to find support for RVWADE in the Constitution. Judicial tryanny is still tyranny. It's the Congress' job to legislate law, it's the President's job to see that Law he signs will stand the muster of the Constitution, not to send junk law to the Courts. Blackbird.

[michigander]

BTW, I have heard over and over that the votes ARE there to override it.

Well heck, let them have at it!
Talk about the best of all worlds.
Veto with objections to the nondisclosure flaws too.
After all, how can they make an effective slander case if they don't know where the ads are originating since the state courts are the only constitutional redress?

[NittanyLion]

I would rather see the ad bans from CFR finally put to rest than see it raise it's head for the next 20 years.

I wonder if people were saying that same thing in 1976? Hmmm...