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.
You know, based upon your entire post, I think we feel basically the same way. I became concerned with the above quoted remark, that I had been too harsh or perhaps relayed a feeling of contempt more than my "utter bewilderment". So with the help of the Robinson's great search tools I took the opportunity to go back and re-read my comments on the topic as they specifically pertained to the President. This thread has been about beat to death more than necessary anyway so I will post them below.
I stated: "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."
Followed by: "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."
Finally: "There may be some that can justify this action by the congress and then GW, while apparently there are many who feel absolutely abandoned. It is not a bright day for the Republic. The cruelest cut for many it seems was our absolute exuberance in supporting and voting for GW. While he is a great deal better CINC than the "draft dodger" we endured for the previous eight years, he seems, alas to be a politician first and foremost."
I really attempted to choose my words quite carefully with terms like "he seems, "deep quandary concerning GW's principled integrity, based upon HIS actions and statements", and ""I am just extremely disappointed in his apparent willingness to abrogate his responsibility ..."
I sit here typing this with an autographed picture of GW at my left shoulder, in appreciation for financial support I gave the man directly, not through the GOP. I want to "reserve judgement". But does that mean I have to ignore my concerns and disappointment? Or more to the point muzzle my political speech right to question our elected leaders when, by most any translation they are violating both the Consitution and their Oaths of office? I'm sorry, but if walking in muzzled lock step is what you mean by "reserving judgement", I can't do that. I don't think that is what you said or meant to suggest. So, I sincerely would like you or anyone to give me a "principled" reason not to voice my concerns. I really won't buy into the "political" gains argument. It smacks of the Trent Lottian/Stevensian view "that since we can't get enough votes to convict, we will forego a "real trial" with "real live witnesses". There has to be a point where pricipled fidelity to the Constitution and Oath's of Office have to trump political risk or gain. If we continue to be willing to look the other way, there will soon be no other way to look.
This just sounds dirty.
Right. Those who don't supplicate before GWB - despite his trampling on the 1st Amendment and coddling of illegals - is a "liberal." Of course.
So he's counting on SCOTUS. I can understand, since the section which does NOT define "political activism ads" is the section we don't want, and he does NOT have line-item veto power.
I keep thinking of the Bush nominees who have yet to be confirmed. I think of the time involved in getting "some parts of it" struck down, even if SCOTUS runs at comparitive warp speed. I STILL worry.
I am more interested in an administration that protects my rights than one that takes "carefully calculated risks" with them. It would take incredible shortsightedness to gamble this way; even one surprise loss in 10 would erode our rights so quickly the Republic would soon be unrecognizable.
Every piece of legislation the congress passed would be immune from judicial review because by definition, if they passed the law they had declared it constitutional.
When someone has been charged with a crime, the case has been tried and appealed to the SC, then they can make their determination. If they say it's unconstitutional, then the accused will go free and there will be no reason for the executive branch to bring the charges against anyone else as they will know the ultimate outcome.
"The judges, believing the law constitutional, had a right to pass a sentence of fine and imprisonment; because that power was placed in their hands by the Constitution."
the President could simply, on taking office, declare all laws he did not like unconstitutional and that would be the end of it.
Not exactly. He can't declare a law unconstitutional. But, he can just not bring charges against anyone accused of violating that law.
"the Executive, believing the law to be unconstitutional, was bound to remit the execution of it; because that power has been confided to him by the Constitution."
It's absolutely true that President Bush is d@mned if he signs, and d@mned if he vetos.
Consequences of signing bill= accusations which we see here.
Consequences of vetoing bill= accusations of coverup, with Enron as the rallying cry.
We already know that McTraitor and Dasshole are bosom buddies. We already know how they feel about President Bush: Mctraitor said after the 2000 election that he had "a mandate." Dasshole hates Bush's guts and wants to take his job in 2004. Of course, McInsane wishes to become our first mad dictator in 2004.
I really REALLY wish that, at the very last minute, President Bush will suddenly reveal that, out of concern for his constituents, he has READ the offending passages, and he cannot, in good consience, sign this bill as it is written.
As for Howlin, like the dems who continue to worship WJC, it is hard to break through the Kool-aide induced partisan stupor.
Regards,
And I'm sure you've gotten this same exact thing about 40 times now, but let me add to it so you will not forget the next time to READ.
That's wrong. Many conservatives won't abandon Bush on principle. Bush can do anything he wants and conservatives will whimper about it for a few minutes and forget all about it and rush to Bush's defense NO MATTER WHAT -- much like Clinton's impeachment-time supporters.
Sure, your right on this point.
( SHOUTING NOW )
Why SHOULD we expect the President of the Freakin United States to defend our right to FREE SPEECH if he hasn't come right out and TECHNICALLY SAY that he would ?
Where is your HEAD ??!!
BTW, " I swear to PROTECT and DEFEND the Constitution of the United States from ALL enemies foreign and domestic"
IS a promise to STOP people in their efforts to take away Americans right to Free Speech.
Oh whats the use ... go back to sleep.
Of course, though, people just can't seem to miss a chance to attack other people here like you did. If you don't like it, LEAVE.
I really do owe you an apology. Allowing emotion to dictate the tenor of my responses really was wrong headed of me. I, with malice aforethought, did treat you with a condescending attitude. That was indeed wrong for me to do. And for that I am sincerely sorry.
I know you, as most of us, really do want only what is best for our Republic. There is no excuse for my action. I lost control and erred.
Today, the sun did rise and by His will it will set and rise again. While I passionately disagree with the President on this action, it doesn't give me license to lash out at you and others in the fashion I did.
Forgive me, if you can. Either way I do regret having taken off on you in the manner I did.
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.