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.
There is more than one way to skin a cat, and if you can do so and make less of a mess, then it might work out, even if it will not work.
The fact is, within fifteen months, this bill is dead, save for the increase in the hard-money limit and the disclosure requirements. The Dems are losers, and will be routed on this.
The DNC probably had their Enron/CFR ads ready to go, they probably cost a few million to produce. They don't have it now. One principle we must understand if we are to get things right is the principle of calculated risk, by which we will do things that may damage us ONLY in instances where there is a probability that we can inflict greater political damage on the Left.
Right now, we have to pick our fights carefully, and attack only when we have an advantage and on the issues we have an advantage on. Furthermore, we may need to be willing to accept that fact that politics is messy.
I also do not see how letting Hillary or Gore or any other Dem will help what we stand for, and the same goes for letting the Dems keep the Senate and take the House. If anything, such an occurence will only make things worse.
More hysterical rants. Aren't you supposed to be yelling "The Sky is Falling" ?
No one sold you or me out.
I do admire Bush, not because he does no wrong or because I agree with everything he does. What I admire is his ability to win battles.
At first I was one of the stronger anti-bushies when it first became obvious he was the "pre-ordained" candidate. The last think I wanted was a repeat of Bush the father.
Freeper folks from Texas told me he wasn't his Father and watch how he handles things. He had a track record that those from Texas admired. They proved correct time and time again.
Bush signed a rotten law which he had said he would veto if it came across his desk. Let's stick to the subject.
So, the oath only applies to not vetoing unconstitutional laws. The oath does not cover actual enforcement of unconstitutional laws because "he doesn't have a choice"? Why doesn't he have a choice?
I did not cast my vote for Bush so he could commit political suicide. I put him in there to do two things: Advance a conservative agenda where possible, and to help get more conservatives elected. This is a war, and you do what has to be done in war.
A principled loser is still a loser. You will only set back efforts to defend the very principles you espouse if you don't accept the fact that we need to elect more conservatives before we can do things your way.
ADVISORY OPINIONS?????? What part of "Congress shall make NO law.....abridging the freedom of speech?" does George Bush and you not understand
What got us 8 years of slimeball was the stupid repubs put up two old men against him. bush1 did not want to run or was too tired and dole looked like an old stern grandfather type, that is what got perot so many votes. Dole should never have been their nominee.
The DNC and McCainiacs would be running ads about how Bush vetoed legislation to stop corporate crooks from buying influence and bribing politicians. They'd be joined by the big networks.
It would be the 1995 budget battle all over again. And whatever victory we gained in that would be Phyrric. I do not intend to win a battle and lose the war.
Now, if you know of a way to make such a principled stand and neutralize attacks like that, I'd like to hear it. If not, then say so, and let's be done with it. I'm sick of name calling and insults, I want people to give me ideas, plans, and let's talk `em through.
Is that a reasonable question?
How about an idea from the founding fathers. I doubt they would fear the attacks resulting from a principled stand.
"That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and
to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most
likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for
light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable,
than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing
invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such
Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security."
-Declaration of Independence
The evils are still sufferable, but I refuse to desert those constitutional principles which have served our nation so well and given us unparalled freedom. The legislative and executive branch deserted those principles so why not the judicial? Regardless of what they do, two thirds of the government has failed the people.
It'll be easy for the Dems and the McCainiacs to demonize him if he constantly lets them have the mike.
Well, it is very easy to see what happened. The GOP leaders felt Keyes was unelectable and too conservative to garner those middle of the road voters needed to win the 2000 election. So they didn't give him their support.
YAWN...Typical ad hominem attack...actually, I would rather vote for Alan Keyes or Howard Phillips.
Read why the majority opinion of the Supreme Court found that party expenditures were independent of the candidate, and thus not covered by legislative caps, but rather entitled to First Amendment protection
Learn more about the landmark decision that rejected portions of the Federal Election Campaign Act claiming that it violated the First Amendment.
I am still hesistant to believe that the Court will rule in favor of Bush. So far, we can be pretty sure that Renquist, Thomas, Scalia, and Kennedy, will vote in favor of Bush, but I am not so sure about the other five.
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.