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.
My beef is that Bush lied to us and violated his oath to protect the Constitution. My beef is also that Bush blew an opportunity to publicly whip Daschele and the dems, while educating Americans about the Bill of Rights.
I would not be so sure that the bill will be overturned by the USSC. The USSC has allowed many unconstitutional things to stand. What makes you think they are now going to suddenly follow the Constitution?
This is true, republicans did.
"President" George W. Bush
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue
Washington, DC
Dear Mr. "President:"
Long before you were elected, a great many people, consisting mostly of liberals and Democrats, probably picked up and disseminated propaganda, intentionally or otherwise, that you were a total idiot. Unfortunately, you have just proven that said leftist propaganda may have more than just a grain of truth.
Specifically, you are proving them right, although not in the way they imagined. You recently desecrated the grounds of the National Weather Service campus in Silver Spring by using their auditorium to announce your junk-science based alternative to Kyoto. But now you've gone and REALLY done it. You signed campaign finance reform, which violates the 10th Amendment in its entirety, as well as the ninth, if not the first. I refer specifically to bona fide restrictions on campaign ads, which are considered a form of political speech.
I spent a number of days standing with other conservatives and Republicans outside of the Vice President's mansion protesting Al Gore's decision to effectively hijack the electoral vote in Florida. This is how I'm being paid back. I voted for you as well. I knew I was electing a socialist to office when I did, but I did not realize just how socialist you were willing to be.
You have sold us down the river. Even though you are right about fighting evil terrorists and rejecting the actual Kyoto protocols, you have sold us down the river this time! All groups, even the liberal scumbag ones that are repeatedly dragging you and your nominees through the mud, have an inherent, natural right to advertise, as they consist of human beings.
You really are turning out to be an idiot, and I suppose I'm not exactly Mensa material for voting for you. Never again; even if Senator Clinton becomes the democratic nominee in 2004, I'm not making the mistake of voting for the likes of you again.
Sincerely,
I disagree. He did not lie if you followed this closely and he certainly did not violate his oath.
My beef is also that Bush blew an opportunity to publicly whip Daschele and the dems, while educating Americans about the Bill of Rights.
What makes you think he isn't setting the stage for a lesson they won't forget ?
I would not be so sure that the bill will be overturned by the USSC. The USSC has allowed many unconstitutional things to stand. What makes you think they are now going to suddenly follow the Constitution?
If the SC supports tobacco companies right to advertise then they will surely support a voters right to advertise. That said, if they don't declare it UC then all your other beefs are unfounded. At least be consistant.
In the White House we have one traitor to the Constitution. It is none other than GWB.
LOL! Is this part of the "brilliant secret plan" to defeat the dems by acting just like a dem?
I'd rather gain majorities in the senate and house and have two years of unobstructed time to pass conservative bills.
What next? Bring back Perot and split the conservative base again so that Hitlery can be President in 2004? What a mind job. You make do with what you have, you don't surrender.
And, folks, this bill HAD to go to the Supreme Court NOW while we still have enough Justices on it who value the Constitution, to settle this issue for the future.
Bush decided he had to keep himself in a position where he could fight for a majority Senate for the second half of his term, a position that will allow him to appoint the appellate judges and Supreme Court Justices that will better be able to defend the Constitution from all sorts of assaults. Currently half the appellate court was appointed by Clinton, and the Democrat Judiciary committee has already applied a religious test for confirmation to this public office and intends to continue to do so.
If we don't get a majority Senate, the Democrats will block all the best appointments that President Bush can make to keep the Court pro-Constitution.
Like the Vietnam War, this was a damned if you do, damned if you don't decision in terms of consequences. The President made a tough call, one a lot of people aren't happy with, and time will tell if the strategery will work the way he is praying.
Yes even the best of people can err..... I hope you can fully understand that.
Do not forget that the Supreme Court is split in terms of Liberal v. Conservative, at an even 4-4, with a touchy O'Conner being the swing vote.
This doesn't sit so easy with me.
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.