Posted on 03/27/2002 6:23:59 PM PST by TLBSHOW
Today I have signed into law H.R. 2356, the "Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002." I believe that this legislation, although far from perfect, will improve the current financing system for Federal campaigns.
The bill reforms our system of financing campaigns in several important ways. First, it will prevent unions and corporations from making unregulated, "soft" money contri-butions -- a legislative step for which I repeatedly have called.
Often, these groups take political action without the consent of their members or shareholders, so that the influence of these groups on elections does not necessarily comport with the actual views of the individuals who comprise these organizations. This prohibition will help to right that imbalance.
Second, this law will raise the decades-old limits on giving imposed on individuals who wish to support the candidate of their choice, thereby advancing my stated principle that election reform should strengthen the role of individual citizens in the political process.
Third, this legislation creates new disclosure requirements and compels speedier compliance with existing ones, which will promote the free and swift flow of information to the public regarding the activities of groups and individuals in the political process.
I long have believed that complete and immediate disclosure of the source of campaign contributions is the best way to reform campaign finance.
These provisions of the bill will go a long way toward fixing some of the most pressing problems in campaign finance today. They will result in an election finance system that encourages greater individual participation, and provides the public more accurate and timely information, than does the present system. All of the American electorate will benefit from these measures to strengthen our democracy.
As a policy matter, I would have preferred a bill that included a provision to protect union members and shareholders from involuntary political activities undertaken by their leadership.
Individuals have a right not to have their money spent in support of candidates or causes with which they disagree, and those rights should be better protected by law. I hope that in the future the Congress and I can work together to remedy this defect of the current financing structure.
This legislation is the culmination of more than 6 years of debate among a vast array of legislators, citizens, and groups. Accordingly, it does not represent the full ideals of any one point of view.
But it does represent progress in this often-contentious area of public policy debate. Taken as a whole, this bill improves the current system of financing for Federal campaigns, and therefore I have signed it into law.
GEORGE W. BUSH
THE WHITE HOUSE,
March 27, 2002.
What ever you do, don't bring up the fact that Bush has mushroomed the federal deficit spending level to an time high. Please don't talk about the largest federal government in US history. And keep it low that the national debt is an all-time-high, and there are no REAL crisis to support this effort which consumes 30% of the GDP!
How can you make an informed decision if you don't know what is at stake?
Bush is going to take on Iraq, without any help from anyone in the world, in order to prevent them nuking D.C. via terrorist agents.
To do that, he is going to need the American people with him through a very difficult and deadly time in our history coming up.
The Bill of Rights took a hit today, and our President should have stood tall and stopped it!
That's my opinion, that's not politics...
Liar, liar, pants on fire.
Exactly my point. The United States is too diverse to be sucessfully governed at the federal level. The states must take back power (starting with the repeal of the 17th amendment) or should divorce themselves from its influence.
The Gipper mainstreamed conservatism.
Until Reagan, the popular image of conservatives was: Archie Bunker, who sneered in a late 1970s episode: "Ye'll get Reegan in '80."
Without Reagan preparing the ground, there would have been no Newt, no Rush, no Bush.
Bush Jr. is a baby rino toiling in the shadow of Augustus Ronaldus Magnus.
Sure the base has abandoned the GOP on several occasions. Perot being the most glaring example. What I am saying is that what you and I may consider a pure conservative would be considered a Fascist drug warrior by the libertarians or a conservative like Buchanan would be considered an unacceptable anti free trader and isolationist by the free traders, Keyes would be considered a religious zealot and dangerous by the fiscal conservatives. Harry Browne would be considered a dangerous anti-family libertine by the social conservatives. There is no way of finding a person that could do any better at pleasing his base than Bush since that "base" is for the most part a shifting foundation of competing single issues. The democrat base is monolithicly socialist which always coalesces around the candidate. They know that 50% is better than nothing.
I agree with everything you said about Reagan but Bush is following the Reagan model to a tee. Reagan however, just like Bush, picked his battles and that was why he won. From gun control to taxes to abortion Reagan gave on the issue or just ignored it. That is the reality and not the "myth" many here want to perpetuate about Ronald Reagan. Reagan did no more for Bork, in fact less than Bush did for Pickering. Reagan pushed for and signed a true blanket amnesty not a temporary extension of time to file, Reagan pushed through 90 billion dollars worth of "revenue enhancements' That are still in place today. Reagan both signed a waiting period for gun purchases while governor and cut the GOP's legs out from under them by publicly lobbying for the Brady Bill after leaving office. Reagan was a great American but also a shewed politician.
Yeah that's the ticket. geeze.
In the meantime this country continues a slow inexorable slide to the left. I'm not sure voting 3rd party will change that, but I am sure that continuing on our current path won't.
And if you want to bring up Perot, yes that did get us Bill Clinton, but I would counter by saying that Bill Clinton getting elected is what got Bush elected. I'd dare say if Hillary got 8 years in the oval office Alan Keyes could walk in after that.
Sure the "big tent" made that inevitable. But removing the anchor on the right will never stop it either. This country is not ready, and may never be, for anyone to the right of Bush.
Bush saved Washington! Don't you know? It would've been nuked if it weren't for him signing CFR! It was his ONLY CHOICE TO AVOID DESTRUCTION!!!
My hero Bush, for whom I would gladly give up my heterosexuality, has found a cheap replacement for strategic missile defence: signing bills! What a genius!
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.