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.

[SUSSA]

Except the fact that Bush shirked his duty. I'm just disappointed because I thought he was honorable.

[AmericanInTokyo]

The burden of proof is for YOU to show that this is his actual intent and strategy; sorry, this conservative does not go on faith only. Because the burden of proof that he is a sellout was clearly evidenced precisely because he signed it into law today.

[VRWC_minion]

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.

From American Heritage... Traitor, one who commits treason.

The founders made their views clear about what is a traitor by the constitution.

It is relevant to your comments if you ae going to hold Bush accountable to the constitution at least be consistant and stop being hysterical.

[Protagoras]

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.

The Republican party was once a third party.

You are so afraid of one despot that you embrace another. And I don't think? That is beyond sad.

As Lazmataz said so eloquently on a different thread, "I will never vote for someone who has removed my rights because I am afraid of someone being elected who might remove them." (paraphrased)

[VRWC_minion]

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.

This won't be the last time they will never vote for him again.

[2nd_Amendment_Defender]

You call me a traitor for not wanting to have George Bush hanged? He signed a bill that will be struck down in the courts. Congress is to blame for this passing this unConstitutional law. IF BUSH HAD VETOED THIS IT WOULD SIMPLY HAVE BEEN OVERIDDEN BY CONGRESS.

Your vote will mean nothing for third party president. You will be voting for a democrat for president.

[conserve-it]

One of Laz's best efforts. Works for me !

[Victor]

"....Because the burden of proof that he is a sellout was clearly evidenced precisely because he signed it into law today..."

Well, my friend, we shall see....I think what he did today, what it DOES prove (if I am right)...is that he has a lot of balls.

[VRWC_minion]

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.

Right now Ashcroft will be required to make the arguments to support the bill. The next attack on Bush will be that he ordered Aschcroft to make weak arguments. Of Ashcroft understands he is only to make a half-hearted attempt at defending it but neither he nor Bush can say so.

[Protagoras]

From American Heritage... Traitor, one who commits treason.

Go fishing for a definition you liked, did you? Here is one from the same dictionary, you must have "inadvertly" missed it.

Traitor- one who betrays one's country, cause, or a trust, especially one who commits treason. Funny how that changes it, isn't it?

and stop being hysterical.

I'm not hysterical, you are comatose.

[VRWC_minion]

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

The irony is that they are going to end up with exactly the same outcome on this Ad ban and have a better shot at controlling the agenda in the future.

[Lazamataz]

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.

You are correct, it is not the same bill.

With the 60-day gag rule, it is a worse bill than the one he promised he would veto.

So I suppose if he signed a bill disallowing all political speech not cleared by the Ministry of Truth, this would REALLY energize the Bush fans. Why, we might even have FOUR 'Day in the Life' threads.....

[SUSSA]

It is all speculation that he has a strategy other than taking care of his personal political well- being. What is known fact is that Bush admitted that it is the president's duty to veto bills he thinks are unconstitutional. This law is clearly unconstitutional. He didn't veto it.

He shirked the duty that he himself admits he has.

I fail to see why we should have such a low standard for Bush. Do you think this is the best we can expect from him?

I expected better. I thought he took his duty seriously. Now I'm disappointed. I guess you knew better and didn't expect him to do his duty.

[AmericanInTokyo]

Here we are ramping up for 2004, and we are already getting the RINO ("Oh, No! Don't vote for a conservative third party because you'll only give the race to the Democrats!") It happens every four years. I can see someone being intimidated into line to think this way for one or two consecutive elections in their life. But ELECTION AFTER ELECTION? Anyone doing that is a sap going repeatedly back to their vomit.

I love the Laz quote. It can be adapted everywhere: that is:

"NEVER VOTE FOR SOMEONE WHO HAS REMOVED YOUR RIGHTS BECAUSE YOU FEAR SOMEONE BEING ELECTED WHO MIGHT REMOVE YOUR RIGHTS"

[VRWC_minion]

Meanwhile, Rush is ripping Dubya a new orifice !! That is because Rush -- unlike Bush -- is a conservative.

Rush always beats on the leading conservative around this time before an election. It gives him cover later to say he isn't an GOP dittohead. By the time we are heading into the elections Rush will have downplayed this except to the extent to prove he isn't a Bushbot and he will rediscover how cool Bush is. He will even admit when the SC rules that Bush played it exactly right.

[Lazamataz]

Rush always beats on the leading conservative around this time before an election. It gives him cover later to say he isn't an GOP dittohead. By the time we are heading into the elections Rush will have downplayed this except to the extent to prove he isn't a Bushbot and he will rediscover how cool Bush is. He will even admit when the SC rules that Bush played it exactly right.

Will he cheer Bush on when Bush signs the Assault Weapons Ban reauthorization a few months before the 2004 election?

[VRWC_minion]

Ronald Reagan started out as a Democrat.

So did Trent Lott. 1 out of 2 isn't bad.

[AmericanInTokyo]

Right. Just as he pushed the House Leadership to pass 245(i) regularization amnesty language in his tactful, omniscient greatness, because he is so confident it will be thrown out by the federal courts but post-facto he can still show that he is compassionate to the liberals and minorities.

Wake up, RINO! Unless you happen to like it this way...

[irishfest]

I don't need to agree with the President all the time but when the President LIES and allows the loss of a fundamental freedom in the name of politics, he loses my support and confidence.

[AmericanInTokyo]

amen