Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Statement by the President: "... I will sign (CFR) into law."
Office of the Press Secretary ^ | March 20, 2002 | George W. Bush

Posted on 03/20/2002 4:33:41 PM PST by erk

The White House, President George W. Bush

For Immediate Release
Office of the Press Secretary
March 20, 2002

Statement by the President

Like many Republicans and Democrats in the Congress, I support common-sense reforms to end abuses in our campaign finance system.  The reforms passed today, while flawed in some areas, still improve the current system overall, and I will sign them into law.

The legislation makes some important progress on the timeliness of disclosure, individual contribution limits, and banning soft money from corporations and labor unions, but it does present some legitimate constitutional questions.  I continue to believe the best reform is full and timely disclosure of campaign contributions.

###


Return to this article at:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/03/20020320-21.html


TOPICS: News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: bush; cfr; cfrlist; silenceamerica
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 551-581 next last
To: mlo
This is all about politics, for both sides.

As for myself I would much rather that the President take an "unpopular" stand, based on Contitutional PRINCIPLES and not brush it off on someone else (SCOTUS)

David

101 posted on 03/20/2002 5:14:21 PM PST by davidosborne
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: BonnieJ
He is Pres. of all of us and compromise is the only way he can realistically govern.

So what you are saying is that it's okay to compromise and vote away rights given to us in our Constitution. You do know that's what you're saying right?
102 posted on 03/20/2002 5:14:35 PM PST by Registered
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 89 | View Replies]

To: jurisdog
Actually, my view is "which part of 'no law' does Congrees not understand???" i think any regulation of speech via regulation of campaign limits is offensive ... but it is clear the unconstitutional part of this that has me and others hot around the collar is the provision that limits independent groups ability to speak out if it affects elections, within 60 days of election day.

It is also clear that the politicians in Congress are quite *fond* of the idea of limiting outside group spending, since it generally attacks *incumbents*. So this is an incumbent protection bill.

103 posted on 03/20/2002 5:14:40 PM PST by WOSG
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 78 | View Replies]

To: erk
I was already fed up with the state and local GOP. Now I'm fed up with the national party too. War or no war, I'm sorry, he just lost my vote. Maybe it's time to move along to the New York State Conservative Party.
104 posted on 03/20/2002 5:14:52 PM PST by firebrand
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: erk
I guess I'm just surprised at how many of us (I throw myself in here) actually believed W was different.

He's first and foremost a politician. He has given some of the best speeches I've ever heard a president give after 9/11... but deep down he's no different (nor can he afford to be) than the presidents, congress-critters, senators, and other politicans before him.

Politics is about money and power...to think anything differently is foolhardy.
105 posted on 03/20/2002 5:15:11 PM PST by birbear
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TrappedInLiberalHell
He also goes on record as being a President who swore to uphold the constitution but will now swear at the constitution.
106 posted on 03/20/2002 5:15:24 PM PST by RamsNo1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: sinkspur
I'm not gonna do a "Perot" again, that's for sure.

At least he threw us a teeny bone with the "some legitimate constitutional questions" part of the statement.

107 posted on 03/20/2002 5:15:41 PM PST by dittomom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 84 | View Replies]

To: ALL
Everyone who would prefer that Algore were President right now, please raise your hand.

And all who would sleep more soundly on 1/20/05 with either Hitlery or Algore in the White House, please raise your hands.

Does anyone think that Algore wouldn't have done this sooner, with no plan of action in mind? And don't even talk to me about one-percenters.

No, I am not happy about this at all. Yes, I am very frustrated. But the fat lady hasn't sung yet.

108 posted on 03/20/2002 5:15:47 PM PST by kayak
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 87 | View Replies]

To: dittomom
I haven't decided how mad I am about this yet...

I immediately called Domenici's office and spelled my name, said I was registered Republican, in the state since 1972, this was the most disappointed I'd ever been with the senator and slammed the phone down so hard pieces of it flew. Put it back together, called our former congressman and unsuccessful 2000 senate candidate and kept my heart from jumping out of my chest and roaring along the phone wires to get his take. He said this way Tristani can't use the vote against him in the fall. I carefully put the phone up and erased any memory of an entire party.

There's a party that starts with R--but I just can't--dyslexia, Alzheimer's, FReementia deliria, for the life of me I just can't remember the name of that party.

I'll wrap a copy of the Constitution around a brick just in case I do.

109 posted on 03/20/2002 5:16:29 PM PST by PhilDragoo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: VRWC_minion
He can choose to announce he won't enforce the parts he believes are not constitutional.

That's not good enough. He loses, mclame wins.

110 posted on 03/20/2002 5:16:47 PM PST by mombonn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 92 | View Replies]

To: Congressman Billybob;erk
The SCOTUS should never have to rule on legislation that, on its face, is unconstitutional. How soon before they will they rule? Way longer than I can hold my breath (or my water).

I wont suddenly become a Bush-basher because of this, and hope y'all wont either. But it sure changes the way I'll look at our president.

111 posted on 03/20/2002 5:16:51 PM PST by Don Carlos
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: rwfromkansas
Kids 17 and under should NOT be allowed to support candidates with money.....they are not self-sufficient, and it's a perfect way for family members to funnel money to candidates. Besides, they cannot even sign most contracts, etc....unless they are emancipated.....then maybe....but as long as ma and pa are paying the bills....NO WAY!
112 posted on 03/20/2002 5:16:52 PM PST by goodnesswins
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 88 | View Replies]

To: rwfromkansas
This bill bans the right of people 17 and younger to send political contributions, even small ones.

So have your Dad send it. He can send twice as much.

Why should you be allowed to send money if you can't vote?

113 posted on 03/20/2002 5:17:29 PM PST by sinkspur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 88 | View Replies]

To: erk
The reforms passed today, while flawed in some areas, still improve the current system overall, and I will sign them into law.

Like saying a cyanide-loaded roast beef sandwich is pretty good nutritionally while flawed in some areas.
114 posted on 03/20/2002 5:17:52 PM PST by aruanan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Congressman Billybob
I echo your post totally.
115 posted on 03/20/2002 5:17:57 PM PST by Terriergal
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: erk
THIS IS WRONG.
THIS IS WRONG.
THIS IS WRONG.
THIS IS WRONG.

116 posted on 03/20/2002 5:18:00 PM PST by Recovering_Democrat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Polonius
Violation of his oath of office. Does this rise to a level where impeachment is warranted??
117 posted on 03/20/2002 5:18:01 PM PST by CedarDave
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: erk
NOTE: from what I understand the Democrats stand to lose the most if CFR passes.....if I remember right, the Black Caucus was against it....
118 posted on 03/20/2002 5:19:01 PM PST by goodnesswins
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ken H
Someone is giving the President some very bad advice

...but the man doesn't have to take that bad advice and act on it.

119 posted on 03/20/2002 5:19:15 PM PST by NoControllingLegalAuthority
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: CedarDave
Then we would have to impeach 60 Senators and a flock of Congressmen right along with him.
120 posted on 03/20/2002 5:19:27 PM PST by dittomom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 117 | View Replies]

To: CedarDave
Does this rise to a level where impeachment is warranted??

Some of you people have lost your minds.

121 posted on 03/20/2002 5:19:54 PM PST by sinkspur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 117 | View Replies]

To: erk
Gee, the flood of faxes, e-mails, and phone calls didn't work. I think he made this announcement just to stem the tide. The WH staff was probably in danger of getting smothered.

Maybe he'll be swayed by massive defections from the GOP.

122 posted on 03/20/2002 5:20:03 PM PST by firebrand
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kayak
Everyone who would prefer that Algore were President right now, please raise your hand

I would poop in my cap and put it back on my head before I would wish for Algore!!

123 posted on 03/20/2002 5:20:33 PM PST by Don Carlos
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 108 | View Replies]

To: VRWC_minion
Maybe I am nuts, but when Bush signs this won't he be signing the whole bill? What's this stuff about not enforcing the unconstitutional parts? PLEASE ADVISE!
124 posted on 03/20/2002 5:20:53 PM PST by RamsNo1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: VAwireguy
Well George...you just blew it for the STUPID party! So glad I voted for Pat Buchanan. I'm betting some of you on here probably wish that you did also!

Buchanan says what he thinks, at least. But most of what he says is idiotic. I wouldn't vote for him on a dare.

I wish I had somebody better than Bush, Buchanan and the other losers to vote for.

Maybe next time.

125 posted on 03/20/2002 5:20:54 PM PST by dead
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: dittomom
The President of the United States has just caved on Hays-Meehan, and has violated his oath of office to "preserve and protect the Constitution." That frees me to say what he should have done.

He should have gotten an Opinion from the Attorney General that the bill was unconstitutional. Then he should have signed the bill into law, but also instructed the Solicitor General to go into court that day, seeking an injuction against ANY use of or application of that law, pending Supreme Court review.

(The President directs the position taken by the Solicitor General, At least five times the SG has been directed not to defend a federal law, but to attack it instead, because the President believed it to be unconstitutional.)

Never, however, has any President both signed a law and directed the Solicitor General to attack it in court on the same day. This could have resulted in a Supreme Court decision striking the law BEFORE the November Election, which would have defanged the Democrats and vindicated the (mostly) Republicans who condemned this bill.

My colleagues and I will now seek to have this entire law declared unconstitutional. We will do that not for the sake of the dishonest President, but on behalf of the Constitution that is under attack.

I SAID THIS BEFORE, AND REPEAT IT NOW. IF WE DO NOT GET THIS LAW DECLARED UNCONSTITUTIONAL, I WILL RESIGN FROM THE BAR OF THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES, AND NEVER ENTER ITS BUILDING AGAIN.

Congressman Billybob

Latest column: "The Truman Factor."

126 posted on 03/20/2002 5:21:15 PM PST by Congressman Billybob
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: goodnesswins
Why should they not have the right to send any money (say, allowance money, etc).
127 posted on 03/20/2002 5:21:19 PM PST by rwfromkansas
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 112 | View Replies]

To: Recovering_Democrat
This is terrible. Bush is killing the golden goose. I have been an unabashed supporter and my wife and I maxed out on donations to him last time. If he signs this, he's going to have to get that money somewhere else.

He gave his word twice, once in the campaign and once when he swore to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.

128 posted on 03/20/2002 5:21:26 PM PST by jwalsh07
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 116 | View Replies]

To: dittomom
At least he threw us a teeny bone with the "some legitimate constitutional questions" part of the statement.

Yes, a teeny bone. I hope we don't all choke on this.

129 posted on 03/20/2002 5:21:27 PM PST by freebilly
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 107 | View Replies]

To: firebrand
Maybe he'll be swayed by massive defections from the GOP.

We can hope. Of course that's assuming ppl WILL defect.

ANYONE have the breakdown of the votes in the senate and house on this bill? Where can they be seen?

130 posted on 03/20/2002 5:21:50 PM PST by Terriergal
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 122 | View Replies]

To: erk
Gee, how many times have I seen this scenerio and George W. Bush? Some "the-sky-is-falling" situation where "W" makes "the big stupid" mistake. And his base supporters are PO'd! And that's that! "See! He is stupid!"

Only to see him come up with some angle that gets him to where "we" want him to be. And where he said he was going in the first place.

Will this be his first major "political failure" since he entered politics? The silver bullet that does him in? Will this be the end of "W". The grand finale? Closing of the curtain? The final act?

Don't bet on it. Or, don't bet against him. If the past is any indicator of the future he will come out on top.

But if he signs this. Straight up. Even his James Carville types like me are going to be upset.

131 posted on 03/20/2002 5:21:55 PM PST by isthisnickcool
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 68-69TonkinGulfYatchClub
AMERICAN'S HAVE BEEN BETRAYED TODAY!
132 posted on 03/20/2002 5:22:30 PM PST by Aquamarine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: dead
Maybe next time.

ROFL. Yeah - Elizabeth Dole's stock is rising, maybe she'll run. There's a real conservative for you.

133 posted on 03/20/2002 5:22:42 PM PST by NittanyLion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 125 | View Replies]

To: erk
What is laughable about this is incumbent politicians talking about how hard the current campaign finance system is on challengers to incumbents. The last thing incumbents want is a viable challenger.
134 posted on 03/20/2002 5:22:50 PM PST by NoControllingLegalAuthority
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: firebrand
Maybe he'll be swayed by massive defections from the GOP.

Keep us informed of the "massive defections."

If they don't happen within the next two weeks, they won't happen.

(PSST: They won't happen.)

135 posted on 03/20/2002 5:23:14 PM PST by sinkspur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 122 | View Replies]

To: erk
This is bad, but not unexpected, news.

Richard F.

136 posted on 03/20/2002 5:24:23 PM PST by rdf
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: davidosborne
I'm beginning to think that's about the only thing that *will* be able to stop this rampant corruption of freedom.
137 posted on 03/20/2002 5:24:40 PM PST by Terriergal
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 85 | View Replies]

To: sinkspur
Why should you be allowed to send money if you can't vote?

I missed this, what article or amendment to the constitution covers this notion?

My father enlisted at 17 for cripes sake. He could fight but not vote nor send campaign contributions? Come on man.

138 posted on 03/20/2002 5:25:00 PM PST by jwalsh07
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 113 | View Replies]

To: Congressman Billybob
Never, however, has any President both signed a law and directed the Solicitor General to attack it in court on the same day. This could have resulted in a Supreme Court decision striking the law BEFORE the November Election, which would have defanged the Democrats and vindicated the (mostly) Republicans who condemned this bill

Actually this bill goes into effect 1 day after the November 2002 election doesn't it?

139 posted on 03/20/2002 5:25:59 PM PST by Dane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 126 | View Replies]

To: TrappedInLiberalHell
I've noticed that no one has tried to answer your question.
Interesting. Your concerns over contracting verbal diahrrea do not seem to be widespread.
140 posted on 03/20/2002 5:26:42 PM PST by Bloody Sam Roberts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: jwalsh07
I missed this, what article or amendment to the constitution covers this notion?

So, should we allow non-citizens to send money too?

They can't vote.

141 posted on 03/20/2002 5:26:51 PM PST by sinkspur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 138 | View Replies]

To: erk
Does anyone remember that this CFR nonsense all started as political cover for the Democrats who utterly violated then-existing campaign finance law? It's all a Grand Sham, political smoke and mirrors.
142 posted on 03/20/2002 5:28:03 PM PST by Phaedrus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jwalsh07
"He gave his word twice, once in the campaign and once when he swore to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

Yes he did. All those e-mails sent. And all those phone calls that fell on deaf ears, needless to say, I am p***** this evening.

143 posted on 03/20/2002 5:28:13 PM PST by deadhead
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 128 | View Replies]

To: Congressman Billybob
It's a damn shame that Bush decided to act in a politically expedient manner on this.

It's all up to guys like you and the courts. Next time the GOP calls for money I'll tell them my money now goes to organizations that will actually FIGHT for the Constitution.

It's a sad day, but I will sleep better knowing there are people like you lined up to send this piece of garbage to the dumpster of unconstitutional laws.

144 posted on 03/20/2002 5:28:45 PM PST by dittomom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 126 | View Replies]

To: mwl1
This soon-to-be law has a provision, like the first CFR, which requires it to be "accelerated on the dockets" of the one trial court and then the Supreme Court. The first such case, Buckley v. Valeo, 1976, was decided by the Supreme Court roughly six months after it started in the trial court.

Expect this case to be filed, as was Buckley on the effective date of the law, That is 6 November, 2002, for this one. Expect the final decision, therefore, in May, give or take a few weeks.

Congressman Billybob

Latest column: "The Truman Factor."

145 posted on 03/20/2002 5:28:47 PM PST by Congressman Billybob
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: sinkspur
Companies can't vote either should they be able to make contributions?
146 posted on 03/20/2002 5:29:43 PM PST by FSPress
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 141 | View Replies]

To: jwalsh07
Why should you be allowed to send money if you can't vote?

Campaign contributions about getting a message OUT.. and hoping that others will agree with your message.. it is NOT about buying votes.. so really I see no connection between "voting age" and campaign contributions.. unless of course you are trying to tell your kids that they are not allowed to have an OPINION or a MESSAGE until they are 18.... my 5yr old has MANY opinions.. some of which I hope she keeps for life, and some of which I hope she changes when she matures.....

147 posted on 03/20/2002 5:29:54 PM PST by davidosborne
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 138 | View Replies]

To: sinkspur
Some of you people have lost your minds.

No, but just thinking out loud and venting anger after this very sad disappointment and betrayal.

148 posted on 03/20/2002 5:30:29 PM PST by CedarDave
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 121 | View Replies]

To: FSPress
agreed

see my post #147....

149 posted on 03/20/2002 5:31:17 PM PST by davidosborne
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 146 | View Replies]

To: Congressman Billybob
I feel very strongly about this. Legal challenges cost $$$$. Principles are worth fighting for and well worth the costs in time and dollars.

If we don't fight the good fight for ourselves, no one else will fight for us. I would be honored to be able to contribute in any way. Does your legal team need donations?

Washington looks out for Washington.....I don't want to jump on the Bush-basher wagon, I keep hoping he will pull yet one more rabbit out of his hat. However, I am doubtful.

150 posted on 03/20/2002 5:31:22 PM PST by Protect the Bill of Rights
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 126 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 551-581 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson