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.

[NittanyLion]

Otherwise he increased our rights.

No one can "increase rights". A government can only take them away by use of force.

[VRWC_minion]

The people want to see righteousness.

No they don't. The people crucify the righteous.

[Maceman]

Hysteria runs high. no he didn't.

So does denial, apparently. Yes he did.

[VRWC_minion]

No one can "increase rights". A government can only take them away by use of force.

I agree, but they took them away when they limited hard money contributions.

[Colonel_Flagg]

If Bush would have vetoed this bill, the 3/4 vote from Congress would have pushed the bill through anyway.

I'm fine with that. Let it become law over his veto. Repeated polling has shown that the broader public could care less about CFR. SCOTUS can still (I hope) slap it down and Bush would have been able to take his rightful place as defender of the Constitution as he swore in his oath.

I'm not foaming at the mouth over this as some anti-CFR types have been portrayed. I am, however, deeply disappointed in my President, who should know better.

[VRWC_minion]

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

If the ultimate end is to have the AD ban illegal, then doing it now with the certain vote of the current members of the SC is far safer than doing it later after Daschle picks the new appointees.

[Protagoras]

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?).

It never occured to me that most people on this forum wouldn't. Jefferson isn't the subject of this thread. If you want to engage me on that subject and find out what I know about him or the constitution, start another thread.

All you people are pretty funny with your precious votes, all of which add up to about .005% of the population.

Not nearly as "funny" as the morons who vote for Repubicans and Democrats. They have removed your rights one at a time, not my party. They have just reached the bill of rights, starting from the top, which one will be next? You are really happy to be in the majority, above all other things apparently.

But a presidency is about a hell of a lot more than one bill.

It doesn't get any more fundamental than defending the first amendment.

Reagan bailed out Harley-Davidson. Bush bails out steel, which at least, it can be argued, is necessary for defense.

A bailout and a trade war are two different things. Both bad, one worse. But all of this is off topic.

but we ARE FIGHTING A WAR, which most people here seem to have forgotten.

More freedomd have been lost in the name of war than all other reasons combined. BTW, this isn't a war. The congress alone has they power to declare war, and they didn't have the balls to do it. they punted to Bush, he was happy to have free rein.

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.

The courts have a poor record defending the constitution. And my right to free speech is not granted by it in any case. I have the right to speak, whether or not it is being violated.

[conserve-it]

"Isn't he just DDRRREEEAAAMMMmmmmyyyyy........? 50 posted on 3/27/02 7:48 AM Pacific by Lazamataz"

Dream as in "Nightmare on Elm Street......the Final Chapter"

[RichardW]

Well, I damn sure know who I am going to vote for long before 60 days prior to the election. What we have seen repeatedly are a pack of lies that can't be rebutted in time to get the true facts out.

[VRWC_minion]

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

So. He also signed a bill that can be contested before it goes into effect. As president he can see to it that he insures the bill gets to SC as early as possible, he can insure that the arguments for the bill are as weak as possible and finally he has the authority if all else fails to not enforce it and provide pardons in advance. Unlike those who are in hysterics I can see that a veto is not the only method at his disposal to support free speech.

[hchutch]

And I'm getting sick and tired of the folks who insist that the politicians on our side do the political equivalent of Pickett's Charge on command.

Sorry, but Bush was in an untenable position the instant the Dems began riding the Enron hobbyhorse. They had him cornered. Sorry if he had more sense than to commit political suicide.

[Protagoras]

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.

Everyone who passed this bill was a traitor. People who defend it's implementation are traitors too. I hope you are not one of them.

People, you are way over the edge. Calm down.

You need to become less calm. You need to open your calm eyes in time to see your rights being taken away. You are the reason this crap becomes law, as you calmly watch. Pitiful.

[VRWC_minion]

Bush promised to veto a bill like this.

And my second wife is just like my first wife. They are both female.

[hchutch]

THANK YOU!!! Unlike the Buchanan-bots, Phillips-bots, and Browne-bots, you THINK long-term!!!

[irishfest]

But the ad ban was illegal until today.

President Bush just made the ad ban legal!

[Maceman]

Sorry, but Bush was in an untenable position the instant the Dems began riding the Enron hobbyhorse. They had him cornered. Sorry if he had more sense than to commit political suicide.

Enron is and was a non-starter. He was NOT cornered. And vetoing CFR would not have been political suicide. That's just silly. The fact is, the public doesn't give a damn about CFR.

In any event, CFR and Enron will be totally forgotten by 2004. This was a simple unprincipled and cowardly act, with not political upside for him.

[conserve-it]

Meanwhile, Rush is ripping Dubya a new orifice !!

[2nd_Amendment_Defender]

I am happy to see our "government" destroyed. I want to replace it with the old constitutional one.

The United States government will be destroyed eventually because it is so corrupt. Then it will be war, war, and more war. If you live through the war I wonder what you will see? I think that you won't be happy to our government destroyed unless you love shedding blood.