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.
Yeah, it's all part of the plan; Bush will sign into law anything the Demonrats ask for since he has no free will whatsoever, so he's blameless. It ALL the Democrat party's fault.
And if the defections cause a Democrat to win the Oval Office in '04, I can't think of anyone more deserving of such a fate than mroally bereft pimps like you.
I do not think an election has passed by where I voted for a candidate who was not 100% in lock step with one or another of my principles. Is going for the best person who has the best chance of winning disgusting?
If you were calmer, and willing to be civil about this, we might find that we have a lot of the same goals, divided only by some rather strong differences of opinion on how to get there. Frankly, I'd rather avoid this worthless fratricidal political fighting. But if this persists, I will fight to prevent greater damage to what I stand for.
I do not want it to come to that, though.
In all fairness, I'm not sure about that. Dubya might be exceeded by Clinton in that department...
Great statement. Thank you for posting it. I've added it to my collection of quotes.
Bush showed his character yesterday, and it was the character of a tyrant. Only a tyrant would attempt such an egregious assault on the Bill of Rights.
That's quite a quote in itself. But for the effort of two patriots, George Mason and Patrick Henry, we would have reached this state much sooner. They would be turning in their graves. Virginia's Great Dissenters: http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a36d8d83a5ef7.htm
When I first heard that W planned to take his oath on George Washington's Masonic Bible, I knew this day would come. I suspected it before that, but I didn't want to believe it; I was temporarily deceived.
I get so tired of hearing this. A rose is a rose by any other name, and so is a 'RAT!!
Bush signed it.
I heard the Democrats are pretty nasty, too!
Is seems some people seethe while they wait in the dark behind their keyboards, totally pissed that thier particular 1 per center did not garner sufficient votes out of over 100,000,000 cast to become the next President of the United states, so now they wax patriotic, poetic, and visibly flustered and angry, yes ANGRY, that this, this peon would dare play politician with THEIR constitution! --Horrers--
Anger is often used, especialy loud, boisterous in your face talk, when the actual merits of the case are not sufficiently strong to sway you with simple logic and facts.
Bush signed the bill.
War is peace. Freedom is slavery. Ignorance is strength. We have us a doubleplusungood buncha pimps on this thread!
GWB this week:
"However, the bill does have flaws. Certain provisions present serious constitutional concerns. In particular, H.R. 2356 goes farther than I originally proposed by preventing all individuals, not just unions and corporations, from making donations to political parties in connection with Federal elections. "
"I believe individual freedom to participate in elections should be expanded, not diminished; and when individual freedoms are restricted, questions arise under the First Amendment. "
"I also have reservations about the constitutionality of the broad ban on issue advertising, which restrains the speech of a wide variety of groups on issues of public import in the months closest to an election. I expect that the courts will resolve these legitimate legal questions as appropriate under the law. "
"Every bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it become a law, be presented to the President of the United States; if he approve he shall sign it, but if not he shall return it, with his objections to that House in which it shall have originated" -- Article I, U.S. Constitution
The President approves of the bill. Period.
Apologies to The Cure ("Why Can't I be You," from Kiss Me, Kiss Me, Kiss Me).
I guess you'd say he's merely working on the domestic front now, like the TAX CUT, the Education bill, the Ashcroft appointment, stopping government funding of overseas abortions, nixing killing any more embryos for stem cell research, ending union shop requirement in government contracts, establishing office of faith based charities, etc. and now taking on reforming Medicare and Social Security.
Fund raising is going on now for the fight to gain control of the Senate in the fall elections. He will fight to get control of the Senate, so he can get his proposals and most importantly, his judicial nominations through. Clinton appointed half of the currently serving judges at the appellate level; this is where the fight for the Constitution is critical, as the courts decide constitutionality.
Without control of the Senate, we have to fight a guerrilla war...the kind where you don't march in lines in red uniforms straight into enemy gunfire.
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.