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. |
|||
![]()
|
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.
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.
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.
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
No he isn't.
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.
Take a deep breath. He didn't violate the constitution.
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.
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??
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.
Would it have been better to have gotten Gore?
Looks like we did.
Is that too difficult for you to comprehend?
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.
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.
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.
there
any
person
in
this
country
serving
as
leader
that
will
stand
up
for
what
is
right
and
constitutional?
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.