Posted on 03/27/2002 4:03:29 PM PST by rightwing2
Bush Signs Campaign Finance Bill; NRA Sues
NewsMax.com Wires
Thursday, March 28, 2002
WASHINGTON – President Bush on Wednesday signed campaign finance legislation that restricts speech and bans unregulated donations to political parties. "I believe that this legislation, although far from perfect, will improve the current financing system for federal campaigns," Bush said in a statement. The measure immediately drew legal challenges. Within a short time of Bush's signing, Sen. Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., had filed suit, as had National Rifle Association. Both denounced the law's infringement on freedom of speech. The law "eviscerates the core protections of the First Amendment by prohibiting, on pain on criminal punishment, political speech," said a legal complaint filed on behalf of NRA and its political victory fund. "We are proud to be one of the first plaintiffs to formally ask the federal court to invalidate these new limits on the political speech of ordinary citizens because we believe that this law cannot be allowed to stand, not even for a moment," stated Wayne LaPierre, executive vice president of the gun rights group. Bush signed the bill as he traveled to Greenville, S.C., and Atlanta to talk with emergency workers and on campaign fund-raising jaunts for Reps. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., and Saxby Chamblis, R-Ga.
The U.S. Senate approved the legislation on March 20 on a 60-40 vote that came hours after a last-ditch attempt to filibuster the bill. It was an identical version of the measure passed in February by the U.S. House of Representatives, avoiding a conference committee that could have been used to kill the bill. The campaign finance bill was sponsored by Sens. Russ Feingold, D-Wis., and John McCain, R-Ariz. Upon learning Bush signed the bill, McCain issued a statement saying, "I'm pleased that President Bush has signed campaign finance reform legislation into law."
'I May Hesitate'
While traveling through El Salvador on Sunday, Bush joked with reporters about placing his name on the bill once it arrived at the White House: "It will probably take about three seconds to get to the W, I may hesitate on the period, and then rip through the Bush." The law bans unlimited contributions, known as "soft money," to national political parties and restricts issue ads aired by interest groups before elections. Bush had called the measure "flawed" but had said he would sign it. "I wouldn't have signed it if I was really unhappy with it. I think it improves the system," Bush told reporters during a stop at Greenville firehouse. "And it improves the system because it enables an individual to give more money. And I want to do is have a system that encourages more individual participation, as well as more disclosure." Still, he said, he had been concerned about a system where money was given to entities and stakeholders had no say. He said he was concerned mostly about corporate shareholders and labor union members not having the ability to object to how their money was being spent. However, although no one is required to buy stock in any company, many workers must pay union dues to have a job.
Opponents of the bill, such as McConnell, say the new law represents an unconstitutional limit to political speech. They note that limiting political advertising by non-affiliated groups will protect incumbents, further empower the media and remove the ability of citizens to band together over common political causes. McCain said last week the scandal surrounding bankrupt Enron Corp., and revelations that the energy trader had donated money to 72 of 100 senators and had pushed electric supply and commodities deregulation though the U.S. Capitol and state houses, helped the cause. Copyright 2002 by United Press International.
All rights reserved.
Grounds for impeachment?
HOW MANY RATS VOTED FOR IT IN THE 2 VOTES AND HOW MANY RATS VOTED AGAINST IT. THEN I WANT TO KNOW HOW MANY REPUBLICANS VOTED AGAINST IT AND FOR IT.
THANK YOU
The sad and somewhat unfortunate fact is that he is unlikely to know this or understand it from a political standpoint, because politically he will be more popular than ever. He will get tremendous press and the large majority of voters, tuned-out as always, will simply see this as something positive -- a good move on his part.
We conservatives are in reality a very small minority of the electorate, our disdain for this will be overwhelmed by the political positives (for Bush) from the massive, mushy, tuned-out, middle of the spectrum.
The only way to do that, sad to say, is for the Supremes to kill it AFTER it has been made law.
{Reaching for barf bag..}
Of course it is, but our leaders have been shredding the Constitution for years and nothing will happen, h#ll, my Republican representative voted against not violating the first amendment in the most recent CFR bill. We strict constructionists are just blowing hot air around here...wake me when the revolution begins.
I'm willing to "cut them a little slack" on this issue; "We'll See!"
Doc
I'd agree that he must have agonized, because he knew that this would cost him votes.
But I think that's the only reason he agonized. I just don't see Messr. Bush as a 'conservative'. This is about the Nth time I've felt he's just another politician.
Altho that opinion is influenced by how I see his father, I suppose.
You basically summed up my feelings on the subject, also.
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.