You're right. And this was the primary motivation, it seems obvious, in Bush's signing it. It was purely a pragmatic move on Bush’s part--because if he hadn't signed it, the dems would cry foul on an issue that was the media's baby.
Unfortunately, pragmatism for a short-term benefit is no match for principle. Yes, it stole the issue from the dems (our Republican leaders and strategists seem to delight in doing that lately), but in the long run, it does nothing to help our nation--and in fact does nothing but further the liberal agenda.
And it's exactly the kind of pragmatism that makes liberals the winners, even when they might lose an election. They get what they want in the end. I don't know about you, but I hate when that happens.
Why do I believe this? Because this bill is heavily weighted towards the Republican Party. It not only maintains the GOP's advantage in hard money contributions it doubles it. The Democrat's advantage in soft money was greatly reduced.
That may be, but it also restricts the free speech of non-politicians. That’s why the NRA and other conservative groups are suing.
That is exactly right and that is the part of the bill that will be found unconstitutional. Look Bush could a vetoed it on "principle" but that would only postpone the inevitable. Why not sign a favorable bill and let the USSC kill the issue ad ban permantly. Bush's veto only survives his term in office a USSC ruling is much harder to overcome. BTW there is quite a bit of analysis that sees groups like the NRA benefiting from this. The NRA can do all the ads it wants right up to poll closing if they are funded by HARD money. Guess which side has the most hard money.