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.

[Dan from Michigan]

Here's the problem with that. Two words. THE MEDIA. I don't want the NY Slimes picking our congresscritters, do you?

[Protagoras]

With all of the disinformation and slick political advetising our elections have become a travesty.

Not as big of a travesty as you and your ideas. Go back to DU, we have enough commies and traitors on this site already.

[Destructor]

"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."

Dimocrats were working on that before the 1st draft was penned.

[oldvike]

LOL, you're exactly right. My appologies. And for the record, normally I don't have such a remarkable capacity for missing the point. :-)

[deport]

Your bud Rush ought to be wound up today.... What have the dems tried to do?

[SirFishalot]

I'm not so worked up about this. I think Bush did the smart thing really. He just negated a whole issue of the Dems and libs, poof, it's gone. I think he knows that there is no way that the 30 and 60 day limits will stand. People will overwhelm the courts with violations from the rampant civil disobedience that will happen if this part stands. A smart man picks his battles and I see Bush as very good at that. He has made the Democrat party look like a bunch of hypocritical idiots for the most part. Don't forget his main selling point in his campaign, "he was going to change the tone". People see that he reaches out to all and treats them with respect and they like that, every time the Dems attack him it turns more and more people off to them and on to him. He's turning their own antagonism against themselves and it seems to be working in my opinion.

[Protagoras]

For all those who are so certain this thing is blatantly unconstitutional and blame Bush for leaving it up to the SCOTUS, what are you so afraid of?

Anyone who knows anything about the court's record in defending the constitution is scared to death. Bush is a traitor for playing russian roulette with our rights for political gain. He should be impeached. I'll bet plenty that most here will vote for him again. They deserve him.

[Rowdee]

These spineless jellyfish politicians haven't a regard for the Constitution--they think they are so high and mighty--and of course, they are right....because the citizens of this country have abdicated their duties and responsibilities as citizens...so, of course, they can get away with this junk legislation.

If they are so very worried about large sums of money necessary to run a senate or house campaign....one of the easiest ways to eliminate a large chunk is to initiate a Constitutional Amendment to eliminte Amendment 17 and restore some balance to the checks and balance system envisioned by the Founding Fathers....let the states once again select the two persons who most likely will work for the benefit of their states rights, which benefits the citizens--not the rights of lobbyists, or foreign interests.

But you can bet your sweet bippy this would be the last thing any of them would want....because they couldn't be feathering their nest.....if their state legislatures deemed they weren't looking out for their states' interests, they'd be out of a job--and wouldn't be in the pocket of some special interest.

[Dan from Michigan]

Laz, I get the sarcasm but it sucks. It sounds TOO good.

It all comes down to the ugly gun ban. If he signs it, I'm voting for one of his opponents. If he doesn't, he MIGHT get my vote.

The gun show bills are another litmus test if they pass.

[Bommer]

Heres a few good words for you

IMPEACH BUSH!

I aint no hypocrite! I wouldn't have tolerated Clinton doing it and sure as hell aint going to tolerate Bush doing it. He is in violation of his oath and under the Constitution he should be impeached....oh wait....the Contitution doesn't mean anything anymore does it. Never mind. I'll just ignore it and know my freedoms are safe and sound!

[Bommer]

Heres a few good words for you

IMPEACH BUSH!

I aint no hypocrite! I wouldn't have tolerated Clinton doing it and sure as hell aint going to tolerate Bush doing it. He is in violation of his oath and under the Constitution he should be impeached....oh wait....the Contitution doesn't mean anything anymore does it. Never mind. I'll just ignore it and know my freedoms are safe and sound!

[irishfest]

But the man took an oath to UPHOLD the Constitution not to sign into law something he believes VIOLATES the Constitution.

All of his pious moral highground has just been swept out from under him in my opinion.

[Old Badger]

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

He did as far as I'm concerned!!! He has been doing this "go along to get along" thing continually which amounts to incrementalism in favor of the Democrats. The only reason I voted for Bush was because of Dick Cheney. Not this next time! Whatever principles Bush has they surely are not to "support and defend the constituion against all enimies foreign and DOMESTIC." I'm truly disgusted with him!!!!

Any President in office during the terrorist attacks would have had to respond in the same way Bush did or they would have been run out of office.

[TheGrimReaper]

This is a dark day for the Executive Branch, as well as the entire Constitution.
I would have expected this kind of nonsense from Klintoon or Algore, but it is deeply disappointing coming from GW.
Now, let's just hope that the SCOTUS does the job that Congress and the President should have done: i.e. KILL THIS DAMNED THING.

[DoughtyOne]

I believe that Conservatives have to stand up and explain why they must oppose bad legislation. I'm am very much dismayed at the refusal of supposed Conservatives to air out the issues in public. How else do we get our message across? Who better than our President to do it?

Ronald Reagan took his beliefs to the people. And having done so, he was rewarded with their support. How do we every expect to gain support without even discussing important issues like CFR?

If the court strikes it down, we can't point to Democrats. We'll be as gulity as they were for passing this piece of excrement legislation. Isn't that a fine claim to fame!

[SirFishalot]

I agree with you. At first I was pissed about this bill but the more I looked at it and looked at the possible strategies that Bush could use I came to the comclusion that he could get alot more mileage by signing it and letting the SCOTUS fix it. I also love the fact that he stiffed the bills sponsors out of their photo op. Watch the selfserving idiots now setup there own makeshift photo op.

[Dan from Michigan]

I think he knows that there is no way that the 30 and 60 day limits will stand.

No, he doesn't know. He THINK it won't stand. I don't trust the courts. Dred Scot was constitutional at one point.

[LS]

Dude, Many of us don't agree with this bill, or with steel tariffs. But man, you are indeed in the Orient if you think Bauer or Buchanan or even Keyes would have in ANY way done a better overall job. I can just see a Buchanan cabinet of warmed over racists and inexperienced isolationists, or a Bauer cabinet of Falwell and Robertson. Mind you, I don't dislike Falwell and Robertson, but they don't belong in government. As for Keyes, no one knows WHAT he would do since he won't ever bother to run for an office he can win, hold, and actually have to MANAGE. Of course, that's the beauty of always being the "outside critic." It allows you to remain "pure."

[Protagoras]

A smart man picks his battles and I see Bush as very good at that.

So which battles do you prefer he picks instead of the battle for the first amendment? Maybe you liked his fight for more government spending on schools and medicare?

You think he made the Democrats look bad, but he is a Democrat now, and the person he really made look bad,,,,is you and your ilk.

[Congressman Billybob]

No it's official. This law is no longer in the House, which fumbled the ball. It is no longer in the Senate, which fumbled the ball. It is no longer in the White House, which fumbled the ball.

This puppy is now headed for MY court, the Supreme Court. It should not have come to this, but it has. We will kil it there. Both links below have to do with killing Shays-Meehan, deader'n Hell, as we say in these parts.

Congressman Billybob

Click here to fight Shays-Meehan.

"Does Anybody READ the Constitution?"