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.
Well, move to the head of the class, rabbit. That is beyond a doubt the most important statement made on FR about CFR in YEARS.
They won't even obey the laws on the books right now and we're acting like this is going to do it? Didn't John McCain stand on the floor of the Senate and insinuate that every politician in D.C. was a crook? "Stop us before we commit yet another felony!"
Ridiculous. Let the United States Supreme Court tell John McCain that he wrote, co-sponsored, lobbied for, and twisted arms to pass an unconstitutional bill. If Bush had vetoed this, we'd all be DEAD before this thing got voted on again and to the Supreme Court.
And they didn't specify which pen either. Didn't Jeffords bail right after getting snubbed like that ? This snub is working on more than one level just like everything else Bush does.
If asked here, there would be substantial numbers who would offer a knee-jerk, emphatic "YES"!!!
This despite: "Free Republic is an online gathering place for independent, grass-roots conservatism on the web. We're working to roll back decades of governmental largesse, to root out political fraud and corruption, and to champion causes which further conservatism in America. And we always have fun doing it. Hoo-yah!"
This statement of purpose is why I got on board here, despite my meager contributions. I can only assume that various others thought this was an official Republican site.
Even more interesting will be when in the coming months groups who support the RATS will be working hand in hand with the conservative they despise so much to get the ad ban removed.
Can you imagine Dashcle and McCain being more marginalized ?
Most imature political folks believe that an elected official can govern and get elected by being either far right or far left. They cannot. They cannot move any farther than the majority of those who elected them. In Bush's case he is about a far right as is possible to get elected and even that was down to the last 500 votes.
Its our job as conservatives to change the hearts and minds of the people. As we do so, the elected officials both Rat and GOP alike will move toward conservatives ideals.
Very funny. Can you imagine ?
I wish others would do the same. I think a hundred thousand bumper stickers arriving in the mail at the White House might convince Bush and his advisors that he has now stepped over the line once too often, and he now is indistinguishable from the Liberals on everything except the War on Terrorism.
I find it encouraging that one of the shakers and movers in the Republican hierarchy in my city, activist to the max to get Bush elected, is receiving letters of outrage like mine from others, adding her own note of agreement, and is sending them on up the line to the White House.
Dubya needs to listen up -- with disaffection spreading in his base less than two years into his presidency, he could follow his dad into unemployment in 2004 even without a spoiler like Ross Perot to divide the vote. Just as "One swallow does not a summer make," 90 percent approval about foreign wars does not a president elect.
I don't understand why this would affect a principled veto of this bill. We now await a dictum from Olympus, providing that they choose to deliver one.
Its our job as conservatives to change the hearts and minds of the people.
I'm doin' my part. I singlehandedly turned an unrepentant 60's hippie around in Dec. He went to CPAC shortly afterward. What is GW doing to affect the change you propose? IMHO, nuthin'.
I really think you need to have second thoughts on voting for someone that would invade Panama. I know it changed my mind about voting for him.
Hmmm,let me think.......I more convinced to vote for him now!
Thanks!
May be Bush has betrayed you, but he hasn't betrayed the Republican Party, or the Constitution. You may find some Freepers who will agree with you, but most conservative-republicans don't see it your way.
Home for the modern conservative movement, remains the Republican Party and not the Libertarian Party, the Constitution Party, or the Reform Party candidate. And besides, Alan Keyes will never win a general election. Keyes would do far worse then Barry Goldwater did in 1964!
If you've already given up on Bush, after a mere 14 months in office, I doubt you actually supported his candidacy at all. Fair and reasonable minded conservatives, like myself, are asking for a united front in support of President Bush and his agenda, we do not ask for unanimity on every issue. It serves no good purpose to draw a line in the sand on every issue. Such rigid thinking is counter productive and is nothing more then reactionary absolutism.
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.