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.

[ecomcon]

You don't lead with fear. Fear in your heart about what will happen in the future; if this thing or that thing comes to pass; it causes incorrect decisions, because you begin to make decisions with reasoning based on a desire to avoid fearful decisions.

You must do what you know is right. You don't sacrifice your principles to avoid taking a "hit".

Let the pragmatists squirm and conform.

The people want to see righteousness.

[2nd_Amendment_Defender]

Anyone who knows anything about the court's record in defending the constitution is scared to death. Bush is a traitor for playing russian roulette with our rights for political gain. He should be impeached. I'll bet plenty that most here will vote for him again. They deserve him.

Would it have been better to have gotten Gore? You vote for another other than Republican and you just threw your vote to the Democrat dogs.

I am personally ticked off that Bush signed this and the previous "Patriot Act." Can you imagine what would be going on right now if Gore were in office?

The general populous of the American people want to destroy our Bill of Rights. Throwing votes to Democrats by voting for third party candidates will surely destroy our government faster. Personally I say we let the courts figure this mess out that George Bush just signed.

[Wphile]

Gimme a break. Don't you know the first rule in politics? It's called POWER. Without the power, nothing can be done. That doesn't mean selling your soul but it does mean getting elected.

By signing this stupid law, Bush forces it to the courts. The courts will throw out the bad parts (I am confident of this) and at that point, the issue will be dead. Without a court ruling, the Dems and McCains will continue on their holy quest for complete public financing of campaigns. This had to be stopped and the best way to do so is through the court.

It's stinks but it's reality.

[Protagoras]

What we currently have is the incumbent protection act and legalized bribery of public officials.

And the answer to that is to make a bad law even worse by making the first amendment null and void?

To be followed by another unconsitutional law to force me to pay my money to advance people and laws which are abhorrent to me and to freedom? Only a Democrat or other moron could support such tyranny.

To compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves and abhors, is sinful and tyrannical.
--Thomas Jefferson, Bill for Establishing Religious Liberty in Virginia 1779

[VRWC_minion]

He is in violation of his oath and under the Constitution

No he isn't.

[Hank Rearden]

Boy, talk about "drinking the Kool-Aid" - that's the lamest, dumbest excuse for not defending the Constitution I've ever heard! Just pathetic.

Bush is a wimp, he made that clear today. Whether he signed it or not, don't you think the 'Rats will keep pushing this crap? And don't you think they'll push it a lot harder now that they've demonstrated that Bush The Wimp can be rolled?

He took an oath to defend the Constitution, and did the opposite. He's a wimp. And he can jump off a bridge for all I care now; Bush is just another big-government politician, always seeking political gain. He's finished as far as I'm concerned; just another sellout to money and power.

Bush is a Wimp.

[VRWC_minion]

But the man took an oath to UPHOLD the Constitution not to sign into law something he believes VIOLATES the Constitution.

Take a deep breath. He didn't violate the constitution.

[RAT Patrol]

ROTFL!

[ecomcon]

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.'

So, why doesn't the President say as much? Just say those words. SPEAK TO THE NATION. It sems every opportunity just goes by the way.

[irishfest]

You've made this comment repeatedly with no back-up. Just saying it doesn't make it so.

The Constitution preserves our freedom of speech - this bill curtails our freedom of speech.

How is signing a bill that curtails the freedom of speech upholding the Constitution??

[Joe Hadenuf]

He's also a globalist that does not put America first.

[Protagoras]

It's called POWER. Without the power, nothing can be done.

It's now clear that this President values power over freedom. Power over the 1st amendment. Power over the constitution. Power over the lives of the many who have given their lives in the last 226 years so we would have the right to say whatever we want about the government or its elected officials.

Power is valued by him above all else.

He was a bad President, now he is a traitor.

[the gillman@blacklagoon.com]

Would it have been better to have gotten Gore?

Looks like we did.

[irishfest]

Read my comment.....He didn't violate the constitution but he signed a law that he himself believes violates the Constitution.

Is that too difficult for you to comprehend?

[Charles Martel]

It's going to probably come down to the ugly gun ban that sunsets. If Bush signs it, he lost my vote for good.

That one won't involve any potential back-room strategy to eliminate via the courts, either. During the campaign, Bush indicated that he did not favor extending the Assault Weapons Ban, saying that it would be "Political Suicide" in an election year. However, he qualified his comments by saying somthing like: "I doubt that it would get through Congress or that I would ever have to deal with it as President. There should be no reason for me to."

It seems pretty clear that if the AW Ban *does* somehow get to his desk, he would look upon it as something that the legislative branch failed to stop. If he has two functioning brain cells, he would realize that the pro-gun vote was critical in electing him, and act accordingly.

In part, this hinges on the Democrat challenger. If the Dims run someone weak, Bush may feel that the gun vote is not crucial to him for re-election. Obviously, if the leftists gain ground in Congress later this year, that will reshape the remainder of Bush's term.

[2nd_Amendment_Defender]

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

I hate this Campaign Finance Reform, but you are right on this one. If Bush would have vetoed this bill, the 3/4 vote from Congress would have pushed the bill through anyway.

I hope this thing gets DESTROYED in the Supreme Court.

[Redcloak]

Hold on Red, this is a dead law. Read the story again and see which side is smirking. The democrats are aren't they? How long will it take to wipe thier smirkin off their faces?

Dead or not is beside the point. Bush promised to veto a bill like this. He lied. "Read my lips." The Dems are going to pound him mercilessly with this from now until '04, just like they did his dad over taxes. Never mind that it's their bill; the same was true of the tax hike Bush41 signed.

[Wphile]

Forget it.

[AmericanInTokyo]

Then Karl Rove knows it, doesn't he?

[Neenah]

Is

there

any

person

in

this

country

serving

as

leader

that

will

stand

up

for

what

is

right

and

constitutional?