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.

[Maceman]

Politically, I don't see how he could have vetoed it

He could have used this as an opportunity to take the high road -- to remind the American people of first principles and the importance of safe-guarding the rights guaranteed by the Constitution. He could have used this as an opportunity to educate, and to establish that he is a man of principle who will not sacrifice our rights for short-term political gain. With an 80% approval rating, and the public not really caring about CFR (according to virtually every poll) it would have cost him nothing politically.

What Bush did is inexcusable, and I will not forgive him for it. Bush sucks.

[Red Jones]

can't even one member of the bush family keep his promises to the electorate when he campaigns? George Bush the liar promised specifically that if a campaign finance reform bill came to his desk with the provisions of this bill that he would veto it. The crowd cheered, but what for, he is a Republican, a bush and a liar.

[oldvike]

I am so tired of Republicans

Yes, every single repulican voted for this bill. We should nuke them all!!!

[Hank Rearden]

He just peed it away for me. I don't support cheap politicians who don't even have the stones to stand up for the First Amendment.

With a (fleeting) 80% approval rate, he couldn't even muster the courage the spend a little political capital to defend free speech. Imagine what this weenie would be like with a 45% rate, which he doesn't even merit with me at this point.

He's a wuss, a weenie, a big-government politician.

Bush is a wimp.

[irishfest]

He could have issued the veto because he was thought to be a man of his word! Like father like son. You'd think he'd learn from his father's mistake!

[Corporate Law]

Never thought about the no Rose Garden signing aspect. I wholeheartedly agree it is a slap to McCain. I bet he is stammering and seething right now. Good move on that part Mr. President.

[StarFan]

Ping.

[TLBSHOW]

Hold on Red, this is a dead law. Read the story again and see which side is smirking. The democrats are aren't they? How long will it take to wipe thier smirkin off their faces?

[irishfest]

DITTO for me Maceman!

[AmericanInTokyo]

Gee all of these posts eerily sound like Bauer, Buchanan, Forbes, Keyes supporters railing against GWB in the 2000 primary on FR and warning the nation.

Only to be shot down and shut up by the "Be Silent, Trust, and Go Along with the Party" faction of Republicanism Firsters.

[RichardW]

Good, glad to see this signed. About time. Next thing ought to happen is publically financed elections so the common man has a chance for a change. With all of the disinformation and slick political advetising our elections have become a travesty. And one of the things we get from our current system is our outrageous income tax laws. Any damned fool could come up with a better system than this.

[BobRJones]

"The son has the same scruples as the father"

That being none of course.

[Protagoras]

I hope that GWB just didn't p**s his presidency away.

The man just signed the repeal of the first amendment and you hope he didn't piss his presidency away? Maybe if he didn't and you get him re-elected he will reward you by signing away the second amendment or the fifth.

Oh, I forgot, he's not Gore. Hard to tell though.

[JesusIsLord]

Time to un-elect those congresspersons who forced this untenable position on GWB. Politically, I don't see how he could have vetoed it - McCain & the Dems would have had a field day

This is nonsense. GW was elected to lead. This isn't leadership, this is capitulation. George needs to read Section 7 of the Constitution; he'll discover he has something called veto power.

This man should know better.

[Hank Rearden]

The only one of those on your list I could even slightly support is Forbes. I'll continue to support Libertarians, though; principles of liberty actually mean something to the LP, unlike the Republican Party.

Bush is a wimp.

[SteamshipTime]

Don't worry. Our brilliant President is just beating the Democrats at their own game. When they wanted to spend more money on education, he vowed to spend even more money on education. When they turned aside calls for stricter border controls, he pushed for amnesty for illegal aliens and called up the National Guard to patrol with unloaded weapons. When they vowed no profiling of young Middle Eastern men, he readily agreed, then celebrated his decision by attending a Muslim feast. Plus, he's retained the two Democrat government officials most responsible for the World Trade Center attacks: Norm Mineta and George Tenet.

I tell ya, the guy's brilliant. Democrats will vote for him in droves.

[AmericanInTokyo]

JIM ROBINSON NOWS NEEDS TO REVISE THE LANGUAGE ON THE FREEP INTRODUCTORY PAGE ABOUT BUSH AND "CFR".

It's a done deal.

The Republic lost.

'But hey! No problem. The President, dontcha know, looks so great and powerful on the South Lawn today with Barney, Spot and the First Lady...'

/sarc, mimicking some crass, shallow and sycophantic, devoid-of-substance King George threads here on FR....

[grebu]

Despite me also being against Campaign Finance (at least which limits free speech 60 days prior to an election), some of you need to see the bigger picture. If Bush vetos the bill, he takes a political hit, especially in the media, and the bill comes back eventually, maybe when a Democrat is in power. Most importantly Bush has an advantage right now of guessing with high confidence what the Supreme Court will do.

If Bush vetos it he takes the chance that the bill will come back when he is no longer in power and that the Supreme Court might not be willing to strike it down - we have no way of knowing what the court will look like in the future but we know now that the chances are good (due to the Buckley v. Valeo decision) that the court will strike down the unconstitution points (ie, limiting freedom of speech 60 days before an election) that conservatives and libertarians find so absurd.

[Blood of Tyrants]

He just lost my support.

[AmericanInTokyo]

We are whining a lot here today, for good cause.

Let's brainstorm. How can we generate this massive outpouring of conservative anger at President Bush on his sellout, into a cogent political movement within the GOP to attempt to deny him the Nomination in 2004 and get a true conservative lined up for it.

Otherwise, perhaps we're all just blowing smoke and Karl Rove and the others, with their flack jackets on, know it and will just wait out the storm.....