Posted on 03/27/2002 7:10:33 AM PST by PeteF
GREENVILLE, S.C. (AP) - President Bush signed landmark campaign finance legislation Wednesday and the National Rifle Association swiftly filed suit challenging the constitutionality of the new law.
Bush signed the measure in the Oval Office — without the public signing ceremony often staged for major legislation. In a written statement, he said that while the bill has flaws, it "improves the current system of financing for federal campaigns."
Bush then embarked on a two-day swing to South Carolina and Georgia, where he planned to raise more than $3 million for GOP candidates for Congress.
Critics have long argued the legislation violates the Constitution, and the NRA was the first in line to file its challenge at the federal courthouse a few blocks from the White House. The legislation "eviscerates the core protections of the First Amendment by prohibiting, on pain on criminal punishment, political speech," said a legal complaint filed on behalf of the NRA and its political victory fund.
He defected because GW was pulling the party to the right and he wanted to stop it.
Some people are so far left that the Dems look right, and some are so far right that the Pubbies look left.
I love America...
Read my post, Laz. I said the NRA would not be stopped by this bill.
It appears that the NRA disagrees with Nix 2.
Why would you take THIS post from another thread where it IS in context and put it here where is ISN'T at all in context? That is a pretty cheap shot, Laz.
It is never a 'cheap shot' to expose another mind to the truth.
Consider yourself exposed. The NRA would be and is affected by this unconstitutional CFR bill.
Maybe that's why he signed it. A veto would not prevent this from being raised again in future administrations.
(Washington, D.C.) --"Early this morning, President Bush signed into law the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act ("BCRA"). When the federal courthouse opened for business today, NRA was there – we have filed suit to invalidate this unconstitutional infringement on the First Amendment rights of the NRA and our four million members nationwide.
We are proud to be the first plaintiff to formally ask the federal court to invalidate these new limits on the political speech of ordinary citizens because we believe that this law cannot be allowed to stand – not even for a moment.
Sen. Paul Wellstone said on the floor of the United States Senate during the campaign finance debate that it was his intention to silence the NRA. As a direct and intentional target of this law, NRA has no choice but to protect our right to be heard.
NRA has been mentioned by name – but the authors of this law have delivered a clear and straightforward message not only to NRA but to all American citizens. That message is this: ‘Keep your mouths shut.' ‘Stay out of our political debates.' ‘Be quiet.'
Our response is this: the First Amendment protects us from such directives from the government. The First Amendment does not allow Congress to make laws which deny us the right to speak out on issues, the right of our members to associate together on public policy issues and the right to petition our government for redress of grievances. That is what this lawsuit is about.
Through this law Congress has essentially granted speech licenses to giant corporate conglomerates such as Viacom, Disney Corporation and General Electric Company by allowing those corporations unlimited rights to spend money talking about issues and candidates, while silencing the voices of ordinary citizens and citizens groups such as NRA.
Why should corporations such as these media conglomerates, all of which own multiple non-news business enterprises and spend millions of dollars lobbying Congress—why should those corporations be allowed to spend whatever they wish, whenever they wish, saying whatever they wish regarding any issue or candidate – when a non-profit citizens organizations such as ours is prohibited from even responding via the broadcast media?
The law imposes severe civil and criminal penalties on citizens who have the audacity to speak out on issues of concern – and we do not believe that the Constitution of the United States of America and the U.S. Supreme Court can possibly allow such a result."
Attorneys for NRA are Charles Cooper, Cooper & Kirk, P.L.L.C. (202) 220-9600 and Cleta Mitchell, Foley & Lardner, (202) 295-4081. Both are from Washington, D.C. The docket # for NRA v. FEC is 02-581.
I'm asking about what those who favor Bush's signature on this junk bill think will come of this bill in the fall election in terms of seats picked up. That seems to be the lame argument in support of Bush's support of this trash. I'm looking for some specifics so I can keep a scorecard to see if I misjudged this issue and those people are right who are predicting gains in the House and Senate.
Also, I'm interested to hear what the phantom new intrepid representatives will do to advance the conservative cause. My guess: bumpkus.
I don't get it either...vetoing this garbage legislation seems like a win-win deal. He vetoes and takes the Constitutional high ground...if the veto is reversed and the Supreme Court tosses the law out, Bush looks like a principled Constitutional scholar. I don't get it.
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.
