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.

[VRWC_minion]

If you are talking about declaring people traitors in the context of the constitution and claiming that signing a bill is an example of that then you are hysterical. Take a moment and look up what the constitution says about the acts required to be declared a traitor.

If you want to take the side of the founders at least be consistant with all of their views. Hint---none of them would dare call Bush a traitor.

[2nd_Amendment_Defender]

I think that you won't be happy to our government destroyed unless you love shedding blood.

The above statement should say:

I think that you won't be happy to see our government destroyed unless you love shedding blood.

[VRWC_minion]

President Bush just made the ad ban legal!

THe law isn't effective until November 2002. The first primary is probably at least 18 months later. The best estimate is that the AD ban will meet its demise in 6 months.

[Dave S]

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.

They seem to forget that the House of Representatives gave something like 360 votes to this with 318 needed to pass. And the House is the institution closest to the people because they are elected every two years. People need to calm down. After the courts have gutted the bill and killed off CFR for a generation, then they should come back and try to tell us that this was the act of a traitor.

[Dave S]

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.

Didnt notice any one preventing you from speaking. Guess the law hasnt gone into effect yet. LOL

You bring a lot of credibility to this debate when you show up with the screen name of a Democrat.

[Redcloak]

Bush promised to veto a bill like this.

You put the bold in the wrong spot. It should look like this...

Bush promised to veto a bill like this.

...but I suspect that trifles like promises don't mean much to you.

[christine]

This is nonsense. GW was elected to lead. This isn't leadership, this is capitulation. George needs to read Section 7 of the Constitution; he'll discover he has something called veto power. This man should know better.

agree!!

[VRWC_minion]

...but I suspect that trifles like promises don't mean much to you.

He made no such promise.

[anniegetyourgun]

"Bring on Queen Hillary..."

Good to know who you'll be working for!

[hchutch]

Before you spout off calling people traitors for thinking of ways to kill crap like this long-term, you need to see how long Roe v. Wade had been in effect.

It's 29 years and counting. The ruling on this one should last at last this long. Bush has set it up to kill this crap for the equivalent of a geological era.

I'm sorry you didn't get the political equivalent of a suicidal banzai charge. That was what you were asking for.

We kill this for three decades, at the very least. That's a lot better than the three years that a Bush veto would have bought us.

[hchutch]

You didn't see the media coverage, did you?

[anniegetyourgun]

Well, looks like lots of folks around here will be off to find a new candidate with whom they can agree with all the time. Seems there will be lots of inconsequential people on FR come this fall since they will never vote "R" again.

[Maceman]

You didn't see the media coverage, did you?

I didn't say the MEDIA didn't care about CFR. Of course they do, since it benefits them the most. I said that the PUBLIC doesn't give a damn about it, and the polls back that up.

[inquest]

Alright, let's just look at it your way for a second: Bush signed this so that the court would strike it down. That just leaves me with one question, though. Shouldn't he have told us that that was the reason he was signing it? What political risk is there in saying that? (OK, so that's two questions)

[hchutch]

Because if he says it, he'll tip his hand, and then they'll counter it.

He does not do everything up front where it will be exposed to fire. This guy's smart. He learned from the mistakes of his father AND the mistakes of Gingrich. You do not telegraph your moves to the other side. That's Strategy 101.

Maceman: Keep in mind that the media cares. That will be enough to make the public care. WE may know that Tom Brokaw, Peter Jennings, and Dan Rather spout BS, but to those soccer moms, they tell the Lord's truth every friggin' evening.

I learned in the 1995 budget battle that a frontal assault does not work any more. Gingrich got cut to ribbons by a media-Democratic offensive. I do not want the same here.

[Protagoras]

If you are talking about declaring people traitors in the context of the constitution and claiming that signing a bill is an example of that then you are hysterical. Take a moment and look up what the constitution says about the acts required to be declared a traitor.

I never mentioned any context for the word traitor. Look it up in the dictionary if you are confused as to it's meaning.
I also am having trouble putting my finger on the part of the constitution that mentions "traitors", I think it refers to "treason". A decidedly different thing. It is in any case irrelevant to my comments.

If you want to take the side of the founders at least be consistant with all of their views. Hint---none of them would dare call Bush a traitor.

You have no way of knowing what the founders thought on this subject since they are all dead. I never mentioned the founders in any case. You should really read more carefully.

[inquest]

By the way, I certainly hope you're right about the court. But from what I've seen, they almost never say anything absolute. You brought up Roe vs. Wade. As abominable as that ruling was in protecting abortion, it nonetheless had more holes in it than Swiss cheese, once you look at all the conditions involved.

What I'm afraid is most likely is that the court will strike down some of the most objectionable parts of it (such as the 60-day rule) while leaving others alone (probably with some more "conditions" as well. Gotta have their hands in everything, don't y'know). That's the way these sneaky statists operate: try something really outrageous, and then scurry back to a more modest usurpation, while letting us defenders of liberty feel like we've had some sort of victory.

[SUSSA]

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 is a myth. The Supreme Court already ruled that spending is speech. That didn't stop them from writing and passing this unconstitutional law. They just keep bringing it back whether it's vetoed or the Court slaps it down.

However, Bush said that the president has a DUTY to veto bills he thinks are unconstitutional. When he signed this bill he shirked his duty by his own admission.

No amount of spin will change the facts. George decided to shirk his duty.

[conserve-it]

For those of us who are anti-abortion and pro religious freedom,(REMOVAL of church from STATE) we put NOT our trust in the courts.