Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Bush signs campaign finance bill
MSNBC ^ | March 27, 2002 | Reuters

Posted on 03/27/2002 6:12:51 AM PST by Redcloak

Bush signs campaign finance bill
But president says Shays-Meehan is ‘far from perfect’

Reuters
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.

alt


       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.”


alt


       
       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.”

alt



       
       MSNBC.com’s
Tom Curry contributed to this report.



TOPICS: Breaking News; Constitution/Conservatism; Crime/Corruption; Government; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: cfr; freespeech
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 201-220221-240241-260 ... 361-380 next last
To: Hank Rearden
You can't push laws that are deemed by the Supreme Court as unconstitutional. We want this to go to court and end there, not go back to congress over and over. Somebody else did bring up a good point, which was to neither sign it nor veto it, let it default to law, and that way he could have shown his displeasure but it still goes to court.

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.

221 posted on 03/27/2002 9:37:45 AM PST by grebu
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 126 | View Replies]

To: Dave S
Ronald Reagan started out as a Democrat.

Maybe a little research and moving beyond a 1st grade analysis would be a good thing before posting.

222 posted on 03/27/2002 9:38:37 AM PST by Diddle E. Squat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 214 | View Replies]

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

The proof and dates have been posted here by others MANY times in the past 2 weeks. And most everyone has seen them. No need to post them again....Bush LIED!!
223 posted on 03/27/2002 9:38:59 AM PST by conserve-it
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 217 | View Replies]

To: Dave S
Ever hear of a Democrat named Grover Cleveland? He once vetoed a bill providing $50,000 for drought relief in Texas. President Cleveland held that Congress had no constitutional authority for such a disbursement since the general welfare clause only modified the enumerated powers--it was not itself an enumerated power.

Grover Cleveland (D) served four terms as president. George Bush (R) wouldn't be fit to carry Cleveland's water.

224 posted on 03/27/2002 9:40:33 AM PST by SteamshipTime
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 214 | View Replies]

To: grebu
You can't push laws that are deemed by the Supreme Court as unconstitutional.

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.

225 posted on 03/27/2002 9:41:40 AM PST by SUSSA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 221 | View Replies]

To: 2nd_Amendment_Defender
The United States government will be destroyed eventually because it is so corrupt.

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.

226 posted on 03/27/2002 9:41:49 AM PST by Protagoras
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 180 | View Replies]

To: conserve-it
O.J.Simpson " If I had killed her, I killed her cause I loved her"

LOL,, how true.

227 posted on 03/27/2002 9:42:46 AM PST by Protagoras
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 216 | View Replies]

To: ThomasJefferson; Congressman Billybob
Then, I suppose that you wouldn't have a deliberate safety for field position at the END of the game.

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.

228 posted on 03/27/2002 9:44:57 AM PST by hchutch
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 213 | View Replies]

To: SUSSA
Well nothing to worry about then, is there?
229 posted on 03/27/2002 9:46:36 AM PST by grebu
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 225 | View Replies]

To: oldvike
I read that my Senators, Inhofe and Nickles voted against it!
230 posted on 03/27/2002 9:47:05 AM PST by tal hajus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Dave S
Well I will grant he was a founding father but why a Democrat?

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.

231 posted on 03/27/2002 9:47:13 AM PST by Protagoras
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 214 | View Replies]

To: SteamshipTime
Grover Cleveland (D) served four terms as president.

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.

232 posted on 03/27/2002 9:48:05 AM PST by Dave S
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 224 | View Replies]

To: Lazamataz
but he outspokenly and forcefully stated he would veto McCain-Feingold.

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.

233 posted on 03/27/2002 9:48:25 AM PST by VRWC_minion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 217 | View Replies]

To: Redcloak
Yikes, people: Calm down

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...."

234 posted on 03/27/2002 9:49:55 AM PST by Victor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Red Jones
journalists are reporting that Bush lied on the campaign trail about campaign finance reform

Different bill, same name. BTW, you trust journalists ?

235 posted on 03/27/2002 9:51:52 AM PST by VRWC_minion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 206 | View Replies]

To: Victor
I think Bush is smart enough( or informed enought) to know that the Supremes will kill the unconstitutional aspects.

That doesn't change the fact that he shirked his duty. I expected better from him.

236 posted on 03/27/2002 9:53:40 AM PST by SUSSA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 234 | View Replies]

To: irishfest
Bush has got most folks here at FR dupped!!!! Bush is a wolf in sheeps clothing. After 911, The Terrorism Bill and Home Land Security Office, how could ANYONE believe he would not sign this bill. What a joke. He is made from the same cloth as clintoon and his dear old dad.....
237 posted on 03/27/2002 9:55:41 AM PST by shield
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: ThomasJefferson
"The Soviet Union was destroyed without a single shot being fired"

Correct me if I am wrong, but didn't a soviet leader say the same thing about their methods for taking over America?
Something to the effect of indoctrinating our children through the public schools and universities? I suppose they didn't think of Congress.
238 posted on 03/27/2002 9:56:03 AM PST by conserve-it
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 226 | View Replies]

To: SUSSA
"....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.

239 posted on 03/27/2002 9:56:24 AM PST by Victor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 236 | View Replies]

To: Victor
I think Bush is smart enough( or informed enought) to know that the Supremes will kill the unconstitutional aspects.

And how does he "know" this? Is he holding an envelope to his forehead a la Carnac the Magnificent?


240 posted on 03/27/2002 9:56:25 AM PST by Redcloak
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 234 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 201-220221-240241-260 ... 361-380 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson