I agree with you. When the offending provisions are stricken and all that is left of CFR is increased limits and greater disclosure, I wonder if all the Bush bashers will come back and admit it was the best way to deal with CFR once and for all.
What we won't get to see (fortunately) is the alternative scenario if he did veto it. Months of hammering by the press from here to the election. McCain on every talk show for the next 7 1/2 months. The constant talk from the left (politicians, newspapers, and TV news) of Enron and the influence of big money corrupting politics and this administration. They would all have had the same talking point memos. Come November when the House and the Senate both ended up in Democratic hands, we would have seen only hard left judges confirmed, tax cuts becoming tax increases, military pay being cut to make way for bureaucratic pay, Kyoto again becoming an issue, missile defense being scrapped and some real Constitution shredding being done. All the "but at least I was right on principle" talk would not have made up for the damage.
But what if the Supreme Court doesn't strike the law you say? I ask all of you Bush bashers where in the Constitution it specifically states that campaign contributions equals free speech? Read it carefully because you won't find it there. Where you will find it is in Supreme Court decisions from this court! Your very arguments against CFR come from the very Court in which you have so little faith. Yes, BillyBob and the NRA will spend money in litigating this case, but how much has been spent already and would have been spent in the future lobbying against CFR year in and year out? John Huang was right, this was the smart way to deal with CFR. Kill it once and for all while gaining political advantage for the next issues to fight on.