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. |
|||
![]()
|
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.
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.
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.
Seems like these people should have learned in Kindergarten that it's impossible to find anyone that they can agree with all the time.
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.
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.
Do you really want to trust nine black-robed bureaucrats with your freedom of speech?
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.
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?
This is flatly incorrect. I don't have the facts or quotes handly, but he outspokenly and forcefully stated he would veto McCain-Feingold.
It is not 60 days before an election.
That is because Rush -- unlike Bush -- is a conservative.
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.
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.