Posted on 03/27/2002 6:12:51 AM PST by Redcloak
|
![]() |
The bill conflicts with several of the principles for reform that Bush set forth last year. |
THE PRESIDENT signed campaign finance reform in the Oval Office this morning, White House spokesman Ari Fleischer told reporters. On balance the president believes it improves the system but its a far from perfect bill. Opponents have promised to quickly challenge the law in federal court. CONFLICT WITH BUSH PRINCIPLES The bill conflicts with several of the principles for reform that Bush set forth last year: For example, it doesnt include a provision that would have required labor unions to obtain authorization from each member before spending dues money on political campaigns. Republicans and Democrats alike believe they can find ways to cope with the new regulations and continue to raise large sums of money for candidates. But there will be great uncertainty for months as both sides wait for the courts to uphold or strike down portions of the bill. At first blush, the bill appears to give Republicans an advantage because it doubles the hard money limits on donations to specific House and Senate candidates from $1,000 to $2,000 and the Republicans have a bigger pool of hard money donors. In the 2000 election, the GOP raised $447.4 million in hard money, 65 percent more that the Democrats raised. |
|||
This is a modest step, a first step, an essential step. But it doesnt even begin in some ways to address the fundamental problems that still exist.... SEN. RUSS FEINGOLD Wisconsin Democrat |
In the 60-to-40 Senate vote March 20, eleven Republican senators joined 48 Democrats and independent Jim Jeffords of Vermont in voting for the bill. Two Democrats John Breaux of Louisiana and Ben Nelson of Nebraska joined 38 Republicans in voting against the bill. Heartened by their success, supporters of the Shays-Meehan bill said it was merely a first step and that they would seek further limits on campaign spending. The bill would ban soft money contributions to national political party committees, but permit such contributions, up to $10,000 per donor per year, to go to any state, county, or local party. Soft money refers to the unlimited contributions that individuals, corporations and labor unions can make to political parties. |
|||
![]() |
||||
![]() |
||||
Campaign finance legislation will effectively gag political speech. LAURA MURPHY American Civil Liberties Union |
Airing in the Chicago media market, the ACLU advertisements urged Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert, who represents a suburban Chicago district, to bring the Employment Non-Discrimination Act to a vote in the House. That bill would ban hiring, firing or promoting people based on their sexual preferences or behavior. Not only have we highlighted the urgency of making employment non-discrimination a top priority in Congress, but the ads also demonstrate in practice how campaign finance legislation will effectively gag political speech, said Laura Murphy, director of the ACLUs Washington office. The ACLUs ad, Murphy argued, is an example of the political speech that would be silenced by the Shays-Meehan bill. Because they are being broadcast during a 30-day window before a primary election, the radio ads would be forbidden by the Shays-Meehan bill. Ironically, our radio ads would be outlawed by the bill, Murphy said, but our virtually identical newspaper ads that are running on Monday would continue to be acceptable. |
|||
![]()
|
How do you know that signing it now and sending it to its demise at the SC isn't the best thing and the right thing ? How do you know this isn't the hard decision ?
He only "sacrificed our rights" if he is wrong about the SC. Otherwise he increased our rights.
Not a terribly compelling argument. What we currently have is the incumbent protection act and legalized bribery of public officials.
All you people are pretty funny with your precious votes, all of which add up to about .005% of the population. And it's contradictory: if your views are so important that the pres. has to listen to them, then he would have listened to them in the first place. Heck, I know someone INSIDE the White House, put in an e-mail, and know that some GOT THE MESSAGE. It has been an issue. So clearly Bush knows what he's doing. Doesn't mean I have to like it. But a presidency is about a hell of a lot more than one bill.
Reagan didn't work at all to end abortion---Bush has already, in three executive orders or changes in Clinton rules, done more to end abortion than Reagan did.
Reagan bailed out Harley-Davidson. Bush bails out steel, which at least, it can be argued, is necessary for defense.
Reagan signed a big tax increase in 1986. Does that make him anything less than a great president? No. It means that like anything else, in politics, you have to compromise. I don't think this is the issue to compromise on, but we ARE FIGHTING A WAR, which most people here seem to have forgotten.
Finally, the poster above does have a great point: if all of you are (as I am) so sure that this bill is unconstitutional, there there is nothing to worry about, right? But, as another poster suggested, we can't trust this to the courts, then let me see: the Legislature (both houses), the Pres., and (if it goes this way) the Courts would have all said this is Constitutional. So it is. End of story. If you don't like it, YOU are then in the position of changing the constitution, a la a repeal of Prohibition.
False. Stop getting hysterical and stick to the facts.
I don't know what you mean by a marker on their agenda, but IF the SCOTUS slaps this down, it will be a black eye for Bush too, since he has now signed on to this travesty. "Congress made me do it" is not the kind of response I expect from the supposed grown-ups in charge.
I would prefer that he look at what is right and what is wrong. I voted for him thinking that he was going to do that.
No, Bush did what was politically convenient for him. He sold out the Constitution for a very small price when you look at the big picture. I have no respect for that! I'd rather lose than win without integrity.
Within six weeks no one on this thread will recall this vote.
He will not be impeached, I never said he would. I said "he should".
The fact that people on this forum still support him for re-election after this traitorous act is more ridiculous.
I just saw the swine on TV making a speech. He was listing the "freedoms" that we are fighting to uphold in the so called "war on terrorism". When he got to free speech, he didn't add, "except within 60 days of an election". I had a gag reflex.
So, when the SCOTUS strikes this down, it will put a stop (or pause) to further legislation. I believe this is precisely why Bush signed the dumb thing. Without a court ruling, this issue will go on and on and on. Time to settle it and shut up the stupid sanctimonius 'reformers.'
Hysteria runs high. no he didn't.
Racist? Your full of crap. I would take Buchanan *any day* before this guy.
One day we may get the chance to have a true leader that supports the Constitution and is for America, first and last, and is not a globalist.
Eleven Repubs voted for this bill. Eleven.
Please explain how this will help in the fall elections. If this will gain us seats, please help me by indicating what the windfall in seats is expected to be.
Next, please help me to understand how these newly acquired seats will help the conservative cause. Please, be specific!
I would offer one tidbit for your digestion: when Bush took control, "we" held both houses and yet we're still the ones that have to compromise our principles in the interest of maintaining power.
I'm sorry, but I don't see how this helps conservatism one iota, even if the phantom gains in the House and Senate come to fruition. Please illuminate me.
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.