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. |
|||
|
As for drinking "Kool Aid", I'm not the one acting like this is the end of the world. It's not.
Go take a walk outside and calm down dude. I'm sure I don't have to tell you that they're all big government politicans, that's how they stay in power. The trick is to choose the one who is the smallest of the big-Gs and who will facilitate the least amount of meddling in your day to day life.
Maybe a little research and moving beyond a 1st grade analysis would be a good thing before posting.
Grover Cleveland (D) served four terms as president. George Bush (R) wouldn't be fit to carry Cleveland's water.
The Congress did just that with this law. The Supreme Court ruled on this in 1976 and several times since but it keeps coming back.
Perhaps, but not soon IMO.
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.
That is only your opinion. And not one which is very likely. The Soviet Union was destroyed without a single shot being fired. I guess you can't think of any scenerios without war in them. And I am the one who loves shedding blood? I am the one who is trying to prevent it by opposing this stuff and the people who perpetrate it before it comes to violence.
I noticed you never answered my inquiry about when "enough is enough" occurs for you. The second amendment? It sure isn't the first!
"Party before county" should be your screen name.
LOL,, how true.
You'd be happier with Hillary in the White House and losing everything you stand for, than to have Bush in, and get 70% of what you stand for. That's the impression I get. Sorry, but your way was tried - it was a loser in the 1995 budget battle. We cannot attack these guys with the frontal attack. It STINKS as strategy.
The Supreme Court cannot give advisory opinions or say how it will rule on pending legislation. You have to have a law to do this. You'll note there was no signing ceremony. I've pinged him on this reply, as well. There ain't no glory for McCain, and I'll bet that there is only going to be a pro forma defense of this thing by DOJ. It's gonna be killed anyhow.
My problem with your attitude on this is the fact that I do not think you are are thinking it through. Go ahead, go third party, elect Hillary as a result, lose everything you stand for, and I hope those chains are light. Because you didn't THINK, we could lose it all.
He was a member of the "Democratic Republican" Party. Look it up. The Republican party of today would do well to mirror the ideals of Jefferson. And most Republicans of a few years ago would be the first to advocate that. Today, many of them are Democrats in disguise who aren't in the least bit interested in the founder's ideals.
You need to study up before you talk.
As President of what country? FDR was the only American President elected to four terms, although he only served a small portion of his fourth. What years did Cleveland serve as President? I think you mispoke.
That isn't the same bill. This bill, among other things, provides that it is on a fast track to being unconstitutional. That bill had provisions keeping corporate money from being donated without shareholder approval. Same name, different bill.
I think Bush is smart enough( or informed enought) to know that the Supremes will kill the unconstitutional aspects.
Even more interesting is that once again he takes the Dems/McCain's issues off the table in time for fall elections; they can't touch him because "he signed it...."
Different bill, same name. BTW, you trust journalists ?
That doesn't change the fact that he shirked his duty. I expected better from him.
I understand your sentiment, but let me ask you something: Does having a strategy constitute dereliction of duty, or shirking his duty?
I would hate to play Bush in a chessgame.
And how does he "know" this? Is he holding an envelope to his forehead a la Carnac the Magnificent?
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.