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.

[inquest]

I don't know what you mean by "tip his hand". Every politician and his mother knows that this is going to be challenged. Those that are in support of this law are going to be making preparations to counter this challenge, regardless of what Bush says. But by saying that he supports a court challenge, he could provide a helluva lot of encouragement to those who are opposed to this.

[inquest]

And I count myself among that number. My point was that we're in a precarious situation indeed with the courts.

[ecomcon]

The people crucify the righteous.

The various media, government and special interest groups crucify the righteous. The centers of power. But, I'm reminded of the red/blue map.

I'll even wager that the ones who crucify still want to see righteousness. It is the essence of battle to them. It smells of death to them. And death is what they seek.

[Protagoras]

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.

Roe V Wade was judicial activism which created a "new right"? The "abortion" you should be speaking about, repealed a REAL right. Huge difference, too bad you didn't understand it.

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.

Nonsense, he is a coward and no attempts by apologists to explain his signing of it will wipe that away. The idea that he signed this as a way to kill it long term is idiotic beyond belief.

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

It may well be that he just committed political suicide. I sure hope so. In any case, if you think it would be suicidal to defend the constitution you are delusional. Almost no citizens cared about this BS before,,,,,, but they will now.

[SteamshipTime]

Richard, when buying and selling are legislated, the first items to be bought and sold are legislatures. Government cannot be reformed, only limited.

The only "reform" which does not abridge freedom of speech and to petition is to restore government to its constitutional limits. We'll still have problems with paving and defense contractors, but it will be better than the entire electorate trying to vote its share of public largesse.

[Red Jones]

journalists are reporting that Bush lied on the campaign trail about campaign finance reform. I also seem to remember him saying that he'd veto this type of legislation. So, I think he's a liar. You may be a bush cheerleader who seeks to change standards of truth for the sake of what?

[Dave S]

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 like these people should have learned in Kindergarten that it's impossible to find anyone that they can agree with all the time.

[conserve-it]

"My point was that we're in a precarious situation indeed with the courts."

Absolutely!

[hchutch]

Look, killing it off for three or four decades is better than three or four years.

You're not satisfied unless it's a political equivalent of a suicide charge. Sorry, but I learned from 1995. Maybe you need to learn that lesson, or your will do your principles more harm than good.

[conserve-it]

"Seems like these people should have learned in Kindergarten that it's impossible to find anyone that they can agree with all the time.

I would settle for 50% of the time.....but not 20%...... goo goo ga ga

[Protagoras]

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

It hasn't. But they have established that they (the government) have the power to prevent people from exercizing thier right. They have currently set the time as 60 days and the frame as before an election. They can change that anytime they please if this stands. When it reaches 365 days, you will have lost it totally.

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

This is my nomination for the dumbest thing anyone has said on this forum today, maybe ever.

[SteamshipTime]

Roe v. Wade has been a judicial travesty for 29 years. It has no constitutional basis.

Do you really want to trust nine black-robed bureaucrats with your freedom of speech?

[Protagoras]

Look, killing it off for three or four decades is better than three or four years.

It was dead before, your party and your President have joined with the other incumbents to bring it to life. It was dead, now it lives. Think

You're not satisfied unless it's a political equivalent of a suicide charge. Sorry, but I learned from 1995. Maybe you need to learn that lesson, or your will do your principles more harm than good.

I guess this means that you are repeating your idea that he signed it in order to kill it. One of the goofier ideas ever brought up. Ask him if that's why he did it. Totally inane.

[Dave S]

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

This is my nomination for the dumbest thing anyone has said on this forum today, maybe ever.

Well I will grant he was a founding father but why a Democrat? Obviously your screen name would have been even dumber if it had been George McGovern or FDR but Thomas Jefferson was an early member of the Democratic party, the party of Gore, Clinton, Dukakis, Johnson, and Kennedy. But since you are not a Republican you could care less. What .0005% party do you belong to?

[ken5050]

I would have liked to see W. one up the Dems,a nd McCain, by vetoing the bill because IT WASN'T EFFECTIVE IMMEDIATELY...... that would have fixed them...

[conserve-it]

"Totally inane."

O.J.Simpson " If I had killed her, I killed her cause I loved her"

[Lazamataz]

He made no such promise.

This is flatly incorrect. I don't have the facts or quotes handly, but he outspokenly and forcefully stated he would veto McCain-Feingold.

[Lazamataz]

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

It is not 60 days before an election.

[Lazamataz]

Meanwhile, Rush is ripping Dubya a new orifice !!

That is because Rush -- unlike Bush -- is a conservative.

[hchutch]

Travesty or not, it's still there, and it has still set the ground rules for the debate. That's REALITY.

And is this a gamble? Look at Congressman Billybob's posts on this issue. This thing is very likely to be tossed out, according to him.