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.
Can't anyone try and file a friend of the court brief ? Do you think McCAin would want to be out front on a losing battle even if Bush doesn't send him a pen ?
I would consider him as having redeemed himself on principle as I pull the lever for a Howard Philips or Ron Paul clone.
You refer to "the President" as if he walked on water, merely for being "the President." Slick Willie too was "the President." Nothing sacred about being "the President." Just a creature of the State.
There will not doubt be dozens of people that will, but whether or not Amicus Curie Briefs actually impact a court's decision is still in debate.
You might as well bail now; he made an unprincipled decision on funding stem cell research. In spite of the fact he cut off FUTURE funding, he was still willing to fund EXISTING lines of embryonic stem cells, thus leaving the door open to expanding funding in the future. I plan to vote 3rd Party (or is it 2nd Party).
Touched a nerve uh. In a little while the RATs will be trying to explain to their base groups (who will be spending time and money joining with the lead conservative groups) why the silenced their speech rights as a trade off for making the GOP more powerfull.
I cannot wait to see how this gets explained to faithful.
Based on the bashing Bush is getting from his base its anything but the cowards way out.
Did you really have to wonder? You knew they would show up bashing the President as they always do.
Bush's compromise was really horrible and his "intense" agonizing couldn't have been that bad, knowing that Biotech firms would still be getting millions in Federal Grants to keep murdering unborn human life anyway.
The last time I voted LP was for Ron Paul in 1988. Still one of the best votes I ever cast.
I can understand what you are saying, but Bush's staunch conservative base is not as big in numbers as the status-quo of America who doesn't care about this bill, the media, and democrats. Sorry, but the true conservatives were really out numbered in this one. Bush figured that his base would pretty much always support him when elections come around anway and this way, he could avoid criticism by the media and democrats in the next election. This was a vote of convenience for him.
One cannot apply this analogy to the antithesis, as you are trying to do. It just doesn't work and becomes non-sensical.
By the way, your cheerleading pryamid is starting to crumble. I am not voting for Bush in the next election, been there, done that, and really regret it. I will instead vote for Howard Phillips--a principled conservative.
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.