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.

[AmericanInTokyo]

I guess your answer was 'yes' to my question.

May I represent it as such?

[ecomcon]

I don't know. Perhaps not.

[AmericanInTokyo]

Let's start floating names here as Primary Challengers to Bush in 2004 over this CFR and his other travesties of late.

[Lazamataz]

N

o

.

[Lazamataz]

If he has two functioning brain cells, he would realize that the pro-gun vote was critical in electing him, and act accordingly.

You assume too much.

[Colonel_Flagg]

If Bush were to be impeached, we would first have to start by removing every Congressman and Senator that voted for it.

And the problem with this is .... ? :)

[Redcloak]

I am so tired of Republicans who don't know what they believe or why they believe it.

This morning, I looked long and hard at the Post Office as I drove by. Those voter registration forms with the little checkbox that says "Libertarian" were calling to me. It wouldn't be a matter of me abandoning the Party I've belonged to for over 20 years so much as the Party I've belonged to for over 20 years abandoning me.

[Lazamataz]

I wonder if this article finally shows that the liberals are not going to stop at this CFR bill. This limitation on free speech is not going to stop until they can put us in jail for any critical speech.

Correct.

We have absolutely no right to criticize the former Soviet Union, since we are rapidly on the way to becoming them.

[Coolidge]

You're insane. How could signing an unconstitutional law, a law he used as an example of his conservative credentials in the primaries, a law he promised not to support, possible be good.

You are suggesting the Supreme Court should be making these important decisions. That is judicial activism my friend. The only defenders of the Constitution are the people and their elected representatives.

Coolidge

[Charles Martel]

I'd rather lose than win without integrity.

Well, at least we know you're not a stinkin' Democrat! ;-)

[Protagoras]

Would it have been better to have gotten Gore?

It wouldn't have been different. They both are the same now. One might have signed this. One did. Bush.

You vote for another other than Republican and you just threw your vote to the Democrat dogs.

The Republican dogs are no better. I don't vote for 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?

Yes, I saw 8 years of Clinton, they were terrible. Now it is worse. It is worse because of people like you who fought Clinton tooth and nail but are now complicitous in tyranny because there is a (R) after Bush's name. You have called for Clinton's skin, but you lick the boots of this swine. Even Clinton didn't repeal the 1st amendment.

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.

The only way to throw away your vote is to vote for people who you don't support because they have you in the bag. You poor fool. Lenin called people like you "useful idiots". Btw, I am happy to see our "government" destroyed. I want to replace it with the old constitutional one. The one with a first amendment.

Personally I say we let the courts figure this mess out that George Bush just signed.

You will probably get a chance to let them "figure it out" when he repeals your second amendment rights. No reason to think he won't based on this development.

Is that the final straw for you, Mr. 2nd_ Amendment_ Defender? Or is there a last straw? I guess you value the 2nd more than the 1st.

Pitiful, a Republican before an American.

[Walkin Man]

Well now that the First Amendment is toast what will be next?

Bye-bye to the 2A????

[Coolidge]

You are wrong because this is not a good political move for Bush. The only people who will base their decision in the next election on this issue will be the conservative freepers who were lied to.

Coolidge

[dixiechick2000]

"Without a court ruling, the Dems and McCains will continue on their holy quest for complete public financing of campaigns."

This has been the CFR crowd's ultimate goal all along. Hopefully, the court ruling will shut them down.

[Charles Martel]

One brain cell, then? :-)

Just thinking on the keyboard... I don't assume that Bush acknowledges or appreciates the pro-gun vote. It will be to his detriment to "assume too much", though, with regard to our support. Don't you agree?

[Protagoras]

Forget it.

Not a chance in a million. He values power over all. And you value him. Pathetic.

[Cogadh na Sith]

He p**sed his presidency away as far as I'm concerned.

Why th' hell do I even bother voting!? Nov 7th I'm just going to sleep in....

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

So he went ahead and inflicted it on us anyhow because he wants to be loved by liberals.

[lucysmom]

"I tell ya, the guy's brilliant. Democrats will vote for him in droves."

And your point is? Winning is everything, integrity is nothing?

[pgkdan]

I feel like I should have just supported McCain in the primaries. Sure, he's just a democrat in sheep's clothing and sure he wants desperately to deprive me of my First Amendment Right to free speech and all that...but we knew all about that, he was honest enough to tell us that.

Bush is a liar. He's also a coward. He has huge clout now with the American people and he's absolutely scared shitless to use it. We saw that in the gubernatorial elections last November. We saw that we he endorsed Riordan in Ca...who at the time all the pundits agreed was the hands down favorite. We saw it in 2000 when he turned on the Republicans in Congress who were trying to support him when he made his famous "don't balance the budget on the backs of the poor" bon mot. Good job Mr. President

[VRWC_minion]

after this traitorous act is more ridiculous.

Calling the signing of a bill that the majority of both houses and the American people want passed a traitorous act is what is ridiculous. People, you are way over the edge. Calm down.