President Signs CFR Act, Statement by the President 3/27/2002

whitehouse ^ | 3/27/2002 | President George W. Bush

[TLBSHOW]

President Signs Campaign Finance Reform Act

Statement by the President

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.

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.

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.

[VRWC_minion]

If the supremes uphold this, then a prior deal has been struck and it will still be a restriction of free speech prior to a time certain of an election.

If they do then all Bush is "guilty" of is signing a bill that an overwhelming house majority supported. We want our politicians to represent us and Bush would be doing just that.

[FreedominJesusChrist]

If you insist on calling me Rebeckie, I actually would just prefer Beckie, since it is my real name.

[TLBSHOW]

There are those in the house that should be tossed out of office for signing on to this bill, but lets look at it a different way. There were 198 democrats that voted for it, vs 41 Republicans. There was 176 Republicans that voted against it and 12 Democrats that voted against it.

That is just the house vote last month.

Look at it this way. If my numbers are correct, which I believe they are

Voted to take away your Free Speech in a time of War

Democrats=198

Republicans=41

Voted to Keep your Free Speech in a time of War

Republicans=176

Democrats=12

The rats must be put out of power in 2002, they are traitors to Free Speech In America

[VRWC_minion]

Do you really think the incumbents won't get around it.

I think that its quite possible that the Rats can lose some support and this would affect some of the more marginal races where the senate will be fought. The Rats are already in danger of losing unions over Alaska. Add to that the ban on free speech and they will take some hits in my opinion.

The GOP on the other hand are the lead group for gettting the AD ban turned down and won't likely suffer as much as the RATs.

I think Bush and is advisors saw this as part of the dynamics for the after affects of his signature.

[VRWC_minion]

No, it means that the court failed in its duty to uphold the 9th, 10th, and, more likely than not, the 1st amendments (not to mention Article I, Section 8) via judicial review. Do you really think I'm stupid enough to swallow your bull?

Then you want a government that decides issues on how you personally perceive them to be. Isn't that called totalatarian ? If that is what makes you happy count me out.

[deport]

Rebeckie.... Heck it's 2 1/2 years until the elections in 04 so who knows what candidate will come along and strike your fancy. Maybe you can do some investigative reporting for the 04 primaries.

[VRWC_minion]

During the campaign, he promised to veto this bill.

Wrong. This bill wasn't the same bill

He also took an oath to uphold the Constitution

Which he has upheld.

[Tolerance Sucks Rocks]

Like I said before...kinda like the ol' man!

[FreedominJesusChrist]

"You are getting closer to realizing that a politician can never be too far from where the majority of the people are. Your disapointment with any politician is merely a symptom of your disapointment with the majority. (Even St. Paul knew this when persuading people to believe in Jesus. He always started where the people were and moved them from there. )"

I appreciated your thoughtful post. The apostle Paul was indeed a great communicator and a great example in the art of persuation. Romans 17: 16-34, is a good example, same with 1 Corinthians 1.

[Tolerance Sucks Rocks]

Then you want a government that decides issues on how you personally perceive them to be. Isn't that called totalatarian ? If that is what makes you happy count me out.

No, not at all. I'm just not willing to go along with egregious constitutional violations like this bill. You, on the other hand, have no problem if the Supreme Kourt upholds this speech totalitarianism. You chutzpah is breathtaking!

[Mulder]

Wrong. This bill wasn't the same bill

While it is not the same bill verbatim, it still limits free speech, just like the McCain bill did.

I did not vote for someone to have them play verbal games and parse words. 12 years of that was enough.

The bottom line is that Bush screwed us. The anti-free speech parts of this bill resemble stuff you would see in a dictatorship, not a free country.

[Tolerance Sucks Rocks]

Wrong. This bill wasn't the same bill

Sorta like the meaning of "is," eh?

[FreedominJesusChrist]

Honestly, Howard Phillips and Alan Keyes have always had a very special place in my heart. My brief political fling with George W. was out of pure pragmatism, but I believe now that it is better to be the idealist. So I will vote and support the underdog who actually represents my beliefs, instead of merely vocally giving them my support.

You know, Alan Keyes was the most championed speaker at C-PAC this year, everyone seemed to just love him--so I know that I am not far off in my support for him.

[Texasforever]

Supreme Kourt

How original.

[Andrewksu]

Man, you guys turn fast. Granted this is a let down, but comments such as not voting for Bush, even if he is up agianst Hildabeast. That's outrageous! Anyway there may be more than meets the eye, (sometimes people in those positions have a little extra info) Ex. Maybe he has a good reason reason to believe that the Supreme Court will take care of the troubling sections of this bill. If I am not mistaken, the rest of this bill would actually be more benificial to the Republicans. I agree that you should not sacrifice standards for a political move, but if the Supreme Court clears up the constitutionally questionable parts, then Bush has just made quite a nice move. Nevertheless, even if he screwed up on this one, let him know, but don't turn your back on the guy who has helped pull us from the horrors of Billary.

[poet]

The dems aren't the only RATS in Washington.

[VRWC_minion]

The anti-free speech parts of this bill resemble stuff you would see in a dictatorship, not a free country.

And when those parts are certainly shot down your beef is ______________?

[poet]

How can you say they are representing us when they violate the constitution? You are trying to defend the indefensible just like the clinton lemmings.

[TLBSHOW]

Don't worry, many here are false posters, as in demorat plants with fancy names that do nothing more than stand out as Rat Alert, Rat Alert beware a rat is in the house. LOL

[deport]

As I said, it's over two years to the next Presidential election.... no telling where you'll be by then. Just look at where you've been in the last year or so. Idealism is nice but sometimes it's hard to breathe without a nose