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.
All that money means nothing if we are barred the freedom to speak within 60 days of the election. Also, look a little deeper: There are special provisions that allow unions to continue pouring money into DNC coffers.
It would appear GW was born without a spine.
The law doesnt' say you have to give $2,000.
How does this law reduce the number of households who can contribute?
Your argument doesn't make any sense.
Not sure who the royal "we" is but can't ads still be run if they are paid for with the hard money and disclosed as such? It's only the soft money that gets barred isn't it? Thus the candidates can still use their money and run the ads...
1.) It removes the issue from the campaign. Now that the bill has been signed, the tying of Republican Senate and House members to Enron and non-signing of CFR is a dead issue. This removes a huge arrow from the democrat quiver, allowing us a greater chance to GET THE MAJORITY IN THE SENATE, which will allow the judicial nominations to get to the floor for passage.
2.) By filing the lawsuit quickly (and I have no doubt that McConnell was coordinating this, probably with the White House as well) the NRA has grabbed the venue. If a LIBERAL organization had filed the suit in California, for example, it would be tied up for years. I imagine that coordination with the NRA is why they had a quiet ceremony with NO photo ops so that people like Daschle wouldn't know exactly WHEN it became law.
3.) Portions of the bill which will remain after the SC rules on it do not take effect until AFTER November 6, which allows the parties to go ahead with their planned expenditures at this time. For us, this is good because we have way more money, and for the dems it is not so good, because they were, I think, banking on a veto and an override. Hence Terry McAuliffe using a HUGE chunk of soft money to pay up front for the new DNC headquarters.
4.) Demonization of President Bush can't be done on this issue (except here on FR, which most voters don't read...sorry) and his campaigning in the contested Senate seats will be more effective.
Off the top of my head, these are the things I can see as an advantage right now.
This is called strategy. Something the Buchananbots, Phillipsbots, and Brownebots have not figured out.
I'm also a NJ freeper. Make sure that your local police department is not running you around. I believe thay have to issue or reject your application within 120 days, otherwise it is automatically approved. Some NJ police depts. have a nasty habit of holding your application for 3 months before they ship it off to the NJ SBI for clearance.
You mean people like Inspector Harry Callahan don't have constituencies of tens of millions? Oh, well-- I guess the few will not vote for GWB twice as much as they didn't in 2000.
Hey! Thats STRATERGERY
:)
Or maybe just good ol' boy west Texas poker playing...
I honestly thought that GW was a step above the "normal" politician
Do you realize what this bill actually says? Do you realize that they did an end around the dems by including language, while not specific to unions includes them nevertheless? Do you realize that the bill raises the amount of hard money donations from individuals? Where are the dems going to find that in the ghettos they've created? Do you know that this bill will give us everything WE have been asking for, and no SC will brook the silencing of challengers to incumbents. Get a grip. You are being emotional beyond justification. I think the problem is that you've bought the Bush=dummy thing. What does that say about you?
I belong to the NRA. Do you really think this will stop us from backing pro-Second Amendment candidates and trashing anti-gunners every time they raise their ugly heads? What will this bill stop YOU from doing that you already do? Would it stop an Angelwood or kristinn? Would it stop the demonstrations and freeps anywhere? Would it have stopped the exposure of corruption in Florida? Do you realize that this bill calls for immediate disclosure of donations from anyone TO anyone, something we don't have now??? Gahhhh!
213 posted on 3/27/02 10:49 AM Eastern by Nix 2
To: Nix 2
BS. Most candidates who are anti-gunners are proud of it. It wouldn't be a slur to them to name them. Get a grip.
Uh, if the them you are reffering to are incumbents, and you're talking about the NRA, they specifically can't name them in any meaningful way 60 days before an election.
268 posted on 3/27/02 11:06 AM Eastern by
To: Nix 2
Naming them in a paid advertisement, as a slur or not, will be illegal thanks to this bill. Get it now?
279 posted on 3/27/02 11:10 AM Eastern
That part of this so-called bill will be gone long before then. No court would let that blatant attack on free speech stand.
289 posted on 3/27/02 11:14 AM Eastern by Nix 2
To: Nix 2
"The NRA will be gagged from talking about a given candidates voting record on guns, 60 days prior to an election."
BS.
I suggest you read the bill. You are uninformed.
Luckily the leadership of the NRA has read it. That is why the Executive Vice President, Wayne LaPierre, has vowed to challenge CFR in the courts.
380 posted on 3/27/02 11:35 AM Eastern by Lazamataz
To: Lazamataz
Luckily the leadership of the NRA has read it.
Read my post, Laz. I said the NRA would not be stopped by this bill. I didn't mention them specifically for no reason. Maybe you have me confused with the airheads stinking up the place with all that hot air.
408 posted on 3/27/02 11:46 AM Eastern by Nix 2
Another poster
Not to make light of your comment...but a question. Is that the *only* impact CFR will have? Or are there more concerns?
It is the most striking concern. I haven't paid attention to the other effects since this one screams at me, "Unconstitutional! Unconstitutional! Unconstitutional!!!!!!"
464 posted on 3/27/02 12:02 PM Eastern by Lazamataz
To: Lazamataz
"Unconstitutional! Unconstitutional! Unconstitutional!!!!!!"
Will be struck down! Will be struck down! Will be struck down!!!!!! We are the first off the mark, but by no means the last. This is on a fast track, Laz...at Bush's behest.
519 posted on 3/27/02 12:28 PM Eastern by Nix 2
All well and good, but my vast preference is that he not play "Jacks or better" with the First Amendment.
Too bad many people don't get it.
NRA-First-Amendment-defending bump of gratitude
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.