Posted on 03/12/2004 6:41:07 AM PST by sheltonmac
On March 27, 2002, George W. Bush signed the Incumbent Politician Protection Act (a.k.a. the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act) into law. The president admitted there were provisions in the bill that presented "serious constitutional concerns," but that didn't stop him - and now we know why.
The ones who passed the law are already entrenched at the highest levels of government. As incumbents they have the press coverage. They have the name recognition. The bully pulpit is theirs to command. Their re-election to office would only be made easier if the competition were silenced in some way, and Campaign Finance Reform does just that. In short, CFR is just a euphemism for limiting free speech.
Bush is no idiot. He knew exactly what he was doing two years ago. He was trying to make it more difficult for a challenger to deny him a second term, and he is now prepared to use the new law to his advantage.
When it was learned that Media Fund, a left-leaning organization funded in part by liberal billionaire George Soros, was gearing up to launch a $5 million ad campaign against the president, the Bush re-election team sprang into action. They filed a complaint with the Federal Election Commission, claiming that the ads are illegal and that Media Fund is in violation of the soft money ban imposed by the new CFR law.
Classically defined, soft money donations are those unlimited contributions made by corporations, labor unions or individuals to a campaign. Such contributions from corporations were banned in 1907, and those from labor unions were abolished in 1947. In 1974, individuals were prohibited from giving more than $1,000 to a particular candidate or $20,000 per year to a political party. But an FEC ruling in 1978 allowed parties to accept soft money funds as long as they were used for generic party activities such as voter registration drives. Not surprisingly, candidates eventually found ways around those restrictions and were able to funnel soft money into TV and radio ads.
As if previous legislation had not violated the First Amendment enough, the president, backed by a Republican-led Congress, signed the latest CFR law under what can only be interpreted as feigned duress. In addition to his alleged "constitutional concerns," he said, "H.R. 2356 goes farther than I originally proposed by preventing all individuals, not just unions and corporations, from making donations to political parties in connection with federal elections. I believe individual freedom to participate in elections should be expanded, not diminished; and when individual freedoms are restricted, questions arise under the First Amendment."
What nonsense. It's as if we are expected to believe that it is precisely because of his concern for individual freedoms that Bush went ahead and signed the bill and is now planning to use it against those spending their own money on ads criticizing his policies. Can anyone explain how that kind of elitist attitude will score points with the American voters?
If Bush truly believed in the importance of free speech, CFR would have been DOA. He would have had the courage to exercise his veto power - something he hasn't bothered to do even once during his time in office.
Sadly, there were a number of "conservatives" who actually supported the president's decision to sign the CFR bill. "Don't worry," they assured the rest of us. "Bush is just taking a hot political issue away from the Democrats. He knows the courts will strike it down. Besides, it's not his job to determine what is constitutional and what isn't." Of course, as we all know, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld most parts of the new law, including the soft money ban, and free speech was dealt yet another crushing blow.
President Bush and the Republicans and Democrats in Congress need to start thinking about what is constitutional and what isn't. They all swore an oath before God and country to "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States," and that includes seeing to it that "Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech." How can that sacred duty be reconciled with the passage of tyrannical laws? How can we trust leaders who so openly and egregiously violate their oath of office?
Politicians know that they can get away with virtually anything because no one will hold them accountable. Just ask Bill Clinton. There was a time when elected officials answered to the American voters, but those days are gone, and all who advocate radical change via the ballot box - especially those who stray from the two-party plantation - are looked upon as quixotic simpletons.
It's a rather strange phenomenon. We claim to value freedom above all else, yet we continue to elect men and women who do everything in their power to take that freedom away from us. I don't know if that makes us slow, stubborn or suicidal.
Depends on the voter, I suppose. I can at least sort of understand those who say we have to vote for Bush lest Kerry come to power. But those who actually like him, who actually think he's good for the country, are just plain out there.
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.