Bush signs campaign finance bill

MSNBC ^ | March 27, 2002 | Reuters

[Redcloak]

Bush signs campaign finance bill

But president says Shays-Meehan is ‘far from perfect’

WASHINGTON, March 27 — President Bush Wednesday signed into law a bill reducing the influence of money in U.S. politics, calling the legislation flawed but saying that on balance it improved the campaign finance system.

	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 it’s 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 doesn’t 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 doesn’t 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.
			This money is ostensibly for get-out-the-vote campaigns and other generic party-building efforts, but is often used to help specific candidates.        The bill would not take effect until the day after this November’s elections, so the parties will be able to raise as much soft money as they want for the next eight months.        The measure would also make it illegal for labor unions, corporations or advocacy groups such as Planned Parenthood or the National Right to Life Committee to broadcast so-called “sham issue ads” during a 30-day “blackout” period prior to a primary election or a 60-day period prior to a general election.        Such ads discuss an issue such as clean air, but also mention a candidate. Instead of saying “defeat Sen. Jim Kelly,” the ads use phrases such as “Call Sen. Kelly and ask him why he voted to weaken the Clean Air Act.”         FURTHER LEGISLATION NEEDED        In the final round of floor debate, Sen. Barbara Boxer, D- Calif., said the bill would limit the “obscene” amount of money being spent on campaigns.        “After all these many years, we’re moving to get control of a system that is out of control,” she said.        Referring to radio and TV advertisements that air during the closing weeks of a campaign, Boxer said, that once the bill becomes law, “Those vicious attacks that have come from large soft-money contributions will not be able to come 60 days before your election. That is a big, big plus.”        She added that she would seek additional legislation to force TV station owners to offer discounted advertising rates to candidates and to impose limits on how much money candidates and their supporters can spent on campaigns.        Feingold said he agreed with Boxer that further legislation was needed.        He called Shays-Meehan “a modest step, a first step, an essential step. But it doesn’t even begin in some ways to address the fundamental problems that still exist with the hard money aspects of the system and I pledge to work with you and everybody else to continue the efforts and accomplish more.”
			A chief opponent of the bill, Sen. Phil Gramm, R-Texas, called it “as blatantly unconstitutional as any bill that has ever been written, any bill that has ever been approved by Congress.”        He said the framers of the Constitution would be “absolutely astounded” that Congress would try to restrict First Amendment rights to political advocacy in the way the bill does.        “I am hopeful to God that the Supreme Court will use the flaming letter of the Constitution to strike down this bill,” Gramm said.         COURT BATTLES AHEAD        One of the plaintiffs is expected to be the American Civil Liberties Union, which began running a series of radio spots Monday that would be outlawed if the Shays-Meehan bill becomes law.
	‘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 ACLU’s Washington office.        The ACLU’s 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.”
			MSNBC.com’s Tom Curry contributed to this report.

[RichardW]

I don't buy this argument that the newspapers are going to pick the winners. Did they pick all of the house of representatives since the incumbents always seem to win? Am I wrong?

[VRWC_minion]

He was going to be a different kind of President.....one with the backbone to do right

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 ?

[RamsNo1]

Hey, if you want to start a petition on this, I will sign my name to it!

[VRWC_minion]

He could have used this as an opportunity to educate, and to establish that he is a man of principle who will not sacrifice our rights for short-term political gain

He only "sacrificed our rights" if he is wrong about the SC. Otherwise he increased our rights.

[RichardW]

"Not as big of a travesty as you and your ideas. Go back to DU, we have enough commies and traitors on this site already."

Not a terribly compelling argument. What we currently have is the incumbent protection act and legalized bribery of public officials.

[Corporate Law]

[LS]

Tom, I'll vote for him again, just like I would have voted for your namesake, who illegally told Americans what that they couldn't sell abroad (let's see how constitutionally astute YOU are---which amendment did Jefferson violate?).

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.

[VRWC_minion]

George Bush the liar promised specifically that if a campaign finance reform bill came to his desk with the provisions of this bill that he would veto it.

False. Stop getting hysterical and stick to the facts.

[Maceman]

When the SCOTUS slaps this down, we will be able to put a marker in their agenda.

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.

[FRlurker]

President Bush does his weekly radio address every Saturday morning at 10:06 am EST on CNN, MSNBC and sometimes on C-SPAN.

[irishfest]

Because he is abdicating HIS responsibility as President of the United States by punting to the SC. It is a "hard" decision only if he is looking at the politics of issue.

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.

[RAT Patrol]

Sorry pal but Bush did what he had to do.

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.

[Armando Guerra]

I'm with you in not being too worried about this. If Bush vetoed the bill, it would just keep coming back again and again every year, being a distraction and preventing other meaningful legislation from coming up (tax reform, Social Security reform, etc.). It would also give McCain more face time with the press and he can still continue riding his one issue to prominence and continue being a thorn in Bush's side. By signing it, Bush has assured it will be challenged and dealt with finality. Guess who gets to present the arguments to support CFR in front of the courts? The Attorney General is the one advocating the government's position. I expect Ashcroft already has the government's position set up presenting such a weak case that it all but openly acknowledges the unconstitutionality of CFR. With the Supreme Court overturning it (and given previous decisions by the court on this matter it will), CFR is totally dead and will not be coming back every year. McCain will have gotten his one issue passed and ruled unconstitutional so he will have nothing left to run on. Those who truly want to see this issue killed know this is the best way to drive a wooden stake through the issue's heart. However, most of the people complaining here don't really care about seeing CFR go away for good, they just want to use the issue to bash Bush.

[VRWC_minion]

Otherwise, perhaps we're all just blowing smoke and Karl Rove and the others, with their flack jackets on, know it and will just wait out the storm.....

Within six weeks no one on this thread will recall this vote.

[Protagoras]

Is he going to be impeached by the very body that overwhelmingly supported the bill? Do you realize how ridiculous that sounds?

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.

[Wphile]

Perhaps "marker in their agenda" is the wrong term. I was in a hurry. My point is that the Dems have no intention of stopping here. Feingold et al are only calling this a "first step." To where, you ask? Complete public financing of campaigns.

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.'

[VRWC_minion]

GWB just blantantly violated his oath to uphold the Constitution!

Hysteria runs high. no he didn't.

[Joe Hadenuf]

I can just see a Buchanan cabinet of warmed over racists and inexperienced isolationists

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.

[homeschool mama]

**Yes, every single repulican voted for this bill**

Eleven Repubs voted for this bill. Eleven.

[BigTime]

OK, for those loyalists who are saying this legislation is a good thing for Republicans, please explain something to me.

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.