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.
CFR is not a big deal with the public. They do not see it as the equivalent of slavery as some do on FR. But if Bush were to veto it, daschle, hillary, and mccain(and their buddies like Russert and Matthews in the press) are there like vultures to capitalize on it.
Look at the political calculus here. Bush signs it and the most vile part(the ad bans 60 days before an election) by previous SCOTUS precedant is thrown out.
The issue is dead. It will not raise it's ugly head again and Bush doesn't hand an issue to the dems.
Is he setting the rats up for November? I hope so.
Agreed. But IMO, the vultures will do just as much damage if he vetoes it, if not more. Bush will never win with the press, nor will any conservative. They should factor the media out this decision.
Look at the political calculus here. Bush signs it and the most vile part(the ad bans 60 days before an election) by previous SCOTUS precedant is thrown out.
That I agree with. In fact, in the end this law could benefit the GOP. But I'll still be just as upset.
The issue is dead. It will not raise it's ugly head again and Bush doesn't hand an issue to the dems.
Like I said, that's probably what they were saying the last time SCOTUS struck down a CFR law, in 1976. This issue will come back regardless, as soon as a power-hungry arrogant b****** like McCain takes office.
Yes, and it implies words in the consitution don't really mean what they say. By that standard, only nine, non-elected Justices are capable of interpreting plain english. Also, how about military officers who swear to uphold the constitution? Do they have to wait years for a Supreme Court ruling to know if they have fulfilled their oaths?
This is the parallel universe we entered when the Supreme Court fabricated "rights" not in the constitution (such as abortion) and watered down those clearly protected, in plain english, in the document (such as the right to keep and bear arms).
With a veto of CFR, the President would have a united and enthusiastic defense from his supporters.
These supporters would include Free Republic, Rush Limbaugh, the majority of GOP senators and GOP representatives, GOP activists at the grass roots level, and conservative public figures.
I'll take that team over Dan Rather, Peter Jennings, the NYT, and the WashPost every time.
I feel the same way.
Tickets are going for $600 at Tickets Unlimited here in Norman and probably nosebleed at that!
Maybe you should go take in a practice!
You stated to Triple, "Post the EXACT words where it say that right here, please." That remark was in response to his/her quote from the Constitution that states in other words "The POTUS alone can decide not to sign or veto - for whatever reason he ALONE sees fit."
Article I, Section 7, Paragraph 2 of the US Constitution http://www.nara.gov/exhall/charters/constitution/constitution.html - Click Here states:
"Every Bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it become a Law, be presented to the President of the United States: If he approve he shall sign it, but if not he shall return it, with his Objections to that House in which it shall have originated ..."
Furthermore, in that same Constitution, at Article II, Section 1, paragraph 8 it is stated:
"Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation:--"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.""
I hope we established in previous exchanges that I am not a Bush Basher, and neither am I a BushBot. I am just extremely disappointed in his apparent willingness to abrogate his responsibility and, in my and quite apparently others views, violate The Oath of Office, required by that same Constitution he swore to "preserve, protect, and defend."
To be quite frank your defense of him asserting it is not his duty/responsibility to return bills which he disagrees with, for whatever reasons he has, is WRONG.
You and the other unabashed defenders of GW are to be lauded for your loyal support to the man and are correct about voicing your concerns over the thought of people ending their support of him without considering the consequences.
However, your attempt to assert that we are wrong to hold his feet to the fire over Constitutionally guarantees as important as his absolute support of our First Amendment right to free political speech, does our common cause no favor.
I have enjoyed a camaraderie with you, Dane, and others in our quest over the years to be rid of the foul stench placed upon our Republic by William Jefferson Clinton and his ilk. But I really don't understand all the hyperbole in your attacks upon people, whose posts I have read that are quite honestly, as I, in a deep quandary concerning GW's principled integrity, based upon HIS actions and statements.
While I am not at the point of saying my quandary will for once and ever cause me to not support him in further elections, I can tell you, my friend, it is close.
The revelations I continue to experience, that when it comes to the acquisition and maintenance of "political power and capital" that there is little difference between the two major political parties continue to grow.
Again, argue your support of the "man" for whatever reason, but please don't insult people who seem to have a .... (looking for an non-inflammatory adjective) ... "different" view of the Constitution and Presidential "duties" as laid out in that venerable document.
A picture comes into my mind of those three infamous mammals with close ties to mankind sitting next to each other with the immortal words, "Hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil", inscribed below them.
Don't get snippy with me, I've got no love for wolves in Republican's clothes..."
Give me a break! Whatever MassExodus stands for It's a whole lot more than you will ever dream of standing for. The only thing you stand for is being a Bushbot. Remember The campaign "Sore loserman" signs. Mass Exodus was a key part in that. You might better get your thumb out of your mouth before you start playing with the big boys. You and your kind have done well if your goal is to disrupt the founding purpose of this forum. Some people just happen to remember that it was not about political party's before you all came along. It was about our constitution and our country.
Howlin:
"How silly of you. Let's stand up and veto it; then we can debate it for the rest of our lives. Not to mention giving the Dems AND the press a huge issue."
Now I finally get it. How silly of me to argue principle and integrity when the discussion is about the "acquisition and maintenance of political power" regardless the cost.
God, I have a thick skull. I think I will join Sir Gawain in the "think tank" and leave the "politicking" to you who are more suited to handle it.
Honest question time again, do you actually represent the mainstream thinking of the rank and file Republicans these days?
Yeah, someone has to run the 'showers'....
Call
For
Revolution
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.