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.
But it didn't stop the Dems from lying. The clear explanations did not get past the mantra of "Medicare cuts." And the clear explanation today would not get past "Bush supports corporate crooks and influence buying" coming from McCain, the DNC, Common Cause, and the media.
That's how it would go. We lose the Senate and break even in the House. This way, it gets killed, but without the attack ads.
The number one lesson about politics from my observations is that you're most vulnerable when you're perceived as being high-handed (a la 1995) or under-handed (as Bush can be made to look right now, btw). But if you take your case directly to the people (you know, that whole democratic thing), you're enemies can't touch you.
Whenever you think of an option to take in a political fight, ask what Clinton could do to respond. Then plan responses to the hypothetical responses, and game it out a second time. Plan for contingencies.
The veto plan was solid prior to Enron. Prior to Enron, you couldn't get the public to care. But Enron changed that. You would have attack ads that the Dems could make stick with the Enron mess.
Their soundbites would be along the lines of "President Bush, with his veto of campaign finance reform, has allowed corporate crooks like Ken Lay to continue buying influence." You'd hear it on ads, from the Dems on the Sunday shows, and from Dems on the campaign trail from now until November.
Perhaps I am too idealistic, but I have always believed that the GOP should choose their candidates out of principle and not out of "who has the best chance to win,"--this is not some game here; it decides the future of our country and whether or not the Constitution still matters anymore. I am sick of tired of electing leaders who blatantly disrespect the American citizen's Constitutional rights.
Get heat for what? If nothing else, I hope to convince you that we're not going to make any meaningful difference without taking at least some heat, even if it's only of the most irrational sort.
And you have the ads accusing him of not being serious.
So let me get this straight: the Democrats who pushed for the bill are going to complain that Bush isn't seriously opposed to it? How can we expect him to get anywhere with such abject timidity? The libs will have him by the you-know-whats and will be able to drag him around anywhere they want.
The rest of you're post is off the subject, since it concerns the veto option, which he did not take, and which I wasn't talking about.
Losers do not have an effect on policy.
Any questions?
Too much for my tastes. Alan Keyes, though, got stomped twice in general elections as a Senate candidate, IIRC.
They will say or do anything to win. Lie, cheat, steal, whatever. They have a strong ally in the media. We ought not walk into every political trap that the Left sets up.
Right now, Bush has said there are "legitimate constitutional questions." That leaves Olson and Ashcroft an opening to admit that certain provisions might be troublesome, but does not give the Dems the excuse to launch full-scale attacks on them that would occur if Bush had them openly attack the law. He's not going to give them ammo, instead, he's going to screw all of `em over when he shows up in their chicken coop and takes all their eggs.
You think if Bush had blundered badly, the Dems would be celebrating all over the place. But they're quiet. They sent up bait for a veto, probably had attack ads ready for use, but Bush didn't take the bait so they wasted the money they spent producing the ads. You don't know how to play game. The President and his advisors do, and they've done pretty well, IMHO.
Paula Jones?
I didn't say that Bush should have Ashcroft and Olson attack the law. I said he should attack the law. By all means he should order them to defend the law in court to the best of their ability. But he should explain his case to the people, as any real leader would.
To be perfectly honest with you, it's not his abilities that concern me, but his motives. But for the sake of the present discussion, I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt and concentrate only on strategy as though he truly were a constitutionalist. (pardon me while I suppress a barf. OK I think it's gone)
and they've done pretty well, IMHO.
I'll reserve that judgement until I actually start to see some rollback - not just dampening of growth, but actual rollback - of the leviathan state in this country.
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.