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.
Do I value the Constitution? Enough to have joined the NRA and visited the Ranch during the post-election fight. But I also value loyalty to people who have saved your butt. And I don't see these things as incompatible.
Well DUH! Should they have supported a sure loser? NO one pulled GOP primary voters to the polls with a gun pointed at their heads to force a vote for Bush. Keyes has had a radio show for years has been on television countless times and is NOT shy about his positions. Give me a break! Like Buchanan it is not the Keyes message it is the messenger. Now, I will give Keyes this, he stayed in the fight and he participated in the debates. That was a sharp contrast to PJB, who also could have fought for the nomination and debated Bush on the issues but chose the money, switched parties and then had the unmitigated gall to whine that he was excluded from the debates.
You tell me, son. You're the one who brought up the oath. I know that the Constitution provides the president with the power to veto legislation he has a problem approving. A president doesn't need to sign something into law in order to get it before the Supremes.
Why don't you show me how signing a stinker of a bill compares with enforcing an existing bad law? The president can ask Congress to repeal a law he doesn't like. He can use his access to the media to explain to the citizenry why he doesn't want a law to remain on the books. He can direct his AG to mount a challenge to the law in federal court.
This is sort of senseless to discuss, though. Bush is the very last president I would expect to challenge a law such as Brady. He would have voted for it himself had he been in the Senate. He certainly would have signed it into law had it hit his desk during his term.
You're also forgetting the name of the bill. This piece of dreck came out of your party. A GOP president signed it into law. Do you really think that if this is killed by the Supremes that it won't be back? You obviously don't know your party or their "opposition".
Campaign finance reform should be achieved by changing the ethics rules in the House and the Senate. The rules on what is proper in campaign financing should apply only to the people in the position to accept the money. If legislation wasn't for sale by both parties' politicians to the highest bidder, none of this would even be an issue.
Bush could have(if he didn't want this crap himself) simply vetoed the bill and stated in his little speech that campaign finance reforms can best be made by changing Congressional ethics, not by passing laws restricting anyone other than those in the position to take the bribes.
That's what all of this is about, bribes. That's what campaign contributions are: bribes. This whole pile of crap concerning "soft money, hard money and PACs" is a problem today because an earlier unprincipled GOP president signed into law an earlier POS bill which created the whole Gordian Knot we now have in front of us.
Pardon me for butting in, but it isn't clear why the legislature passed something obviously tainted--it may be possible that it's a compromise of sorts to get what is good and have the SCOTUS smack down the bad; the exec's comments seem to me to say clearly to those with the ears to hear that he thinks some of it is rubbish, but that other parts are bona fide, and that he'll risk it in the Court. Do you agree with my observation, and is this gamble the desertion of which you speak?
Agreed. Perhaps the fight could not be won on that front (not that that legitimates unnecessary and/or dangerous laws).
Lawyers carried the cases to court, but the fight was on the ground in Florida and DC. Without that fight going on, the news media could have and would have reported on a few weak little protests by Bush's campaign people and a few court challenges and then Gore would have been inaugurated.
W has never fought for anything and has never worked a day in his life. It's ridiculous to talk about any politician fighting or working. They never do either. They hire snake oil salesmen to convince us to fight and to encourage us to work.
Bush didn't save your butt. You saved his. He owes you his loyalty, but don't hold your breath waiting for him to deliver.
This bill won't do anything to stop corruption of politics by money and doesn't contain a single provision worth keeping. Signing it was an admission by W that he's going to merge the two parties in Congress just as he did in the Texas legislature. Of course, everyone will cheer him on until he has to face the electorate in '04.
In case you have not noticed this is not an ideal world, and so we sometimes have to use tactics that aren't exactly pretty or the answer you would give in a civics class.
A year from now, maybe 15 months, tops, this law is tossed out. The CFR crowd cannot bring it up EVER again. That's called stopping this as close to PERMANENTLY as you possibly can, and it saves our poltical capital to get conservative judicial nominees confirmed.
If Bush has to appear on Howard Stern's show to get votes, I hope he does. Period. Because you can bet your mortgage/rent/whatever that the Dems play by those rules.
The long-term game is the judical nominations, and Bush is going to need all the help he can get to have a Senate that will confirm his nominees. Now, are you going to run off over principle, or are you going to help get people who will be able to protect your principles over the long haul? That is the choice.
Well I see part of the problem right here. Personally, I'm not interested in a Senate that will confirm "his" nominees; I want a Senate that will confirm genuine conservative nominees.
So now he's signed CFR. The primaries in many states haven't even begun yet. Who do you think is more likely to win Bush's support - and hence the Republican nominations - now that Bush has signed this: real conservatives or the "compassionate" variety? And why won't people vote for real conservatives? Because Bush has once again moved the goalposts for what's considered "respectable" and what's considered "loony".
if you can't sell it in a twenty-second soundbite, you are screwed.
So that's a reason not to even try at all? The best we can hope for with this strategy is to slow, for the time being, the advance of statism. This is not the way to win a war for our freedoms. It doesn't even resemble victory. More like progressive surrender.
Are that afraid of winning? A principled loser is still a loser. You have not explained to me how someone who agrees with you but is not elected does any good for what you believe in.
I'm sorry, but playing politics is something we have to do. It's dirty, it's messy, you sometimes need to cut a deal on occasion, and you sometimes have to punt.
More often than not, nice guys finish last in politics.
Like father, like son. Bush Sr. fought fiercely against Buchanan for the nomination. Then when he had it, he slept through the campaign against Slick. Bush Sr. didn't want to win re-election. He just wanted to beat Pat.
This is no guess. After the election, former NYC mayor Ed Koch reported on a meeting he had with Bush Sr. about '91 or '92, and Bush Sr. said: "Oh boy, I can't wait to get out of here." Koch said he sort of felt the same way after 12 years as NYC mayor.
And for those who don't like me calling them Bush Sr. and Bush Jr., well too bad. It's easy shorthand. Only someone as hypersentive as a PC Leftist would get upset over such an irrelevency. Of course, some Bushies are as blindly pro-Bush as were the Clintonistas.
Oooh, you walked right into that one. Don't you see that that's exactly the point I'm making?
Half a chance beats no chance.
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.