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.

[AmericanInTokyo]

Do you continue to support President Bush for re-election in two years, as of this morning? If so, why?

I'd like to get further acquainted with your views, LS.

[Republican Wildcat]

I am thoroughly disgusted. I will be supporting my Senator's lawsuit 100%.

And it appears this is just the beginning:

(Boxer) 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.

They've been given an inch, so now they are going to try for a mile. This was a huge mistake.

[Protagoras]

This is the day when I have (so far) been most proud to say, I'm not a Republican.

[Wphile]

No doubt. We all know that mccain's greatest love is the CAMERA!

I hope Bush issues a statement, however, detailing the parts he likes (hard money contributions) and the parts he doesn't (issue advocacy and complete ban on soft money). It would certainly help clarify the issue for many.

[LS]

I certainly wouldn't trust most of the "true conservatives" you have in mind. Keyes won't even run for a low level office because he would actually have to GOVERN (i.e., "compromise"---gee, there's that dirty word that all the "outs" always get to accuse the "ins" of doing, until they get in.)

Forbes? Good guy---totally uncharismatic. I heard him two years ago in Dayton. He can't win any race, period. But I'd love to see him try to win a House or Senate seat, but, dang, that's probably below him, isn't it?

Ever wonder why ol' Patsy doesn't run for a House seat? Then he'd have to vote, and COMPROMISE, becuase to get a pro-life bill he'd have to give in on trade; or to get an anti-Israel bill, he'd have to give in on guns. See, the problem is, that to get elected, a conservative MUST APPEAR to be not quite so conservative. Reagan was an exception, running in the midst of a foreign policy crisis and an economic depression. But note that even he wouldn't have been "pure enough" for the Freepers, because he refused to do anything about abortion, or gun control, and gave up on taxes after 1986. Read his bio, "An American Life."

[Joe Hadenuf]

I am so tired of Republicans who don't know what they believe or why they believe it.

As Rush would say, ditto.

[RamsNo1]

I wonder if this article finally shows that the liberals are not going to stop at this CFR bill. This limitation on free speech is not going to stop until they can put us in jail for any critical speech. Is this part of some great strategery on Bush's part? The SCOTUS can strike this down but the anti-first amendment crowd will keep this up until they win. Funny thing is that the press can scream, "first amendment", the porn business can scream, "first amendment" but we as regular americans get gagged when we try to do it.

[inquest]

What really bugs me more than the fact that he vetoed it is that he never registered any serious protest about it, aside from some vague (Bush vague?! Nahh...) "misgivings". Does anyone know if Bush has a weekly radio address the way Clinton did? There are so many things Bush could have said about this bill, about how it protects incumbents, that really would have resonated with ordinary people who haven't given it much thought.

[teletech]

This is truly a sad day. President Bush blew it BIGTIME! His words are little consolation to those of us who hold our freedoms near and dear. Now it's up to the Supremes, if it gets that far. Sad. Very, very sad.

[Wphile]

They haven't been given an inch. Because of the Dems's true intentions, we have to fight this one in court. They will not relent as long as CFR goes unchallenged.

When the SCOTUS slaps this down, we will be able to put a marker in their agenda. I have complete confidence in McConnell's legal team.

[VRWC_minion]

What no signing pen for McCain ? No special ceremony for the sponsors ? What a shame.

[TLBSHOW]

Can you believe Feingold and the Dems? "This is just a first step

bingo

[VRWC_minion]

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.

Plan B... A try at slamming Bush. Bush said this in the original context of the original bill which required companies to get shareholder approval.

[TLBSHOW]

Sorry pal but Bush did what he had to do. The rats are finished and this fall we win it all. And the American people will send the rats to HELL.

[RAT Patrol]

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.”

The really purpose of the bill! Silence critics.

[RichardW]

What you have now is the incumbent protection system. A newcomer has virtually no chance of election as the politicians currently in office spend virtually all their time rounding up money and they get it because they are well known and lean on contributors. Could you do that? How many from the House are ever defeated? Almost none. The only time the offices change hands is when someone dies or retires. We now have a class of lifetime politicians.

I seriously doubt if the Constitution and free speech had much to do with bribing of public officials.

[VRWC_minion]

he son has the same scruples as the father.

But he doesn't have the same street smarts.

[Republican Wildcat]

Would you have advocated the impeachment of Thomas Jefferson? Remember the Louisiana Purchase?

Is he going to be impeached by the very body that overwhelmingly supported the bill? Do you realize how ridiculous that sounds?

[RamsNo1]

Well, Bush will need those democrats because alot of his base will refuse to vote for him, now. But of course, I am sure that he couldn't give a **** about that.

[the gillman@blacklagoon.com]

Sure!

And you got that invincible Mr. Magoo wannabe, Ken the Tortoise Starr heading up the posse.

He'll show em all right.

Even if by accident something goes halfway right in the court, Bush is a maggot for signing this. Good riddance to him. Bring on Queen Hillary, she can't be any worse.