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 1-50 ... 151-200201-250251-300 ... 551-581 next last
To: VAwireguy
>537 votes. Then all the 3rd party voters would have given us Al Gore. Not much of a choice, some of the things he's doing, but was less of the two evils.....let's see where all this goes before signing into law; perhaps he is reading the avalange of email this weekend will offer him a clue. While I make no excuse for this legislation, nor do I understand why he did this, "w" is still better than the alternative on a big picture. It sure makes him hard to defend this day though.
201 posted on 03/20/2002 5:56:08 PM PST by Issaquahking
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: jwalsh07
Jwalsh07,

I agree with your responses

TOWARDS FREEDOM !!

David

202 posted on 03/20/2002 5:56:25 PM PST by davidosborne
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 194 | View Replies]

To: sinkspur
You need to get some principles, kneepad.
203 posted on 03/20/2002 5:56:54 PM PST by rwfromkansas
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 185 | View Replies]

To: davidosborne
Thanks.
204 posted on 03/20/2002 5:57:20 PM PST by jwalsh07
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 202 | View Replies]

To: Issaquahking
"w" is still better than the alternative on a big picture. It sure makes him hard to defend this day though.

AGREED !!!

205 posted on 03/20/2002 5:57:39 PM PST by davidosborne
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 201 | View Replies]

To: jwalsh07
I can't believe he is going to sign this, I am so pissed off, I'd like to take him behind the barn and beat some sense into him.

You're overreacting. You really are. By the time this takes effect in 2004 it will have been a)overturned due to its unconstitutionality or b) The ways around it outlined in USA TODAY yesterday will have taken effect.

Either way, the GOP wins.

The hyperventilation over CFR has been Limbaugh-driven and ACU-driven. This CFR is weaker than the 1970 "reforms" and the GOP figured out a way around those in four years.

Money finds a way, and the GOP has ALWAYS had more money!

206 posted on 03/20/2002 5:57:44 PM PST by sinkspur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 184 | View Replies]

To: Protect the Bill of Rights
...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.

I keep hoping, like Charlie Brown, that Lucy will hold the football. I am continually disappointed. Maybe I'll change my screen name to CynicalDave (only half kidding).


207 posted on 03/20/2002 5:58:02 PM PST by CedarDave
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 150 | View Replies]

To: VAwireguy
P.B. wouldn't be doing anything because he had about as much a chance as Ralph Nader...
208 posted on 03/20/2002 5:58:53 PM PST by cactmh
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies]

To: rwfromkansas; sinkspur
Sinkspur has apparently placed principles and Constitution beneath party. Sinkspur, I strongly urge you to consider that some things are wrong, even if you perceive a benefit from them.
209 posted on 03/20/2002 5:58:57 PM PST by NittanyLion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 203 | View Replies]

To: FreeReign
Passing and signing unconstitutional law is not illegal. A politician can not go to jail for it. It's that seperation of powers thing -- ya know the Constitution.

I am not a lawyer, but violating your OATH to SUPPORT and DEFEND the constitution IS a crime worthy of impeachment... REMOVAL from office... not jail...

210 posted on 03/20/2002 6:00:39 PM PST by davidosborne
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 200 | View Replies]

To: Issaquahking
You know, it wouldn't surprise me if Bush's 2004 Democratic opponent used CFR as an issue against Bush (even though it was primarily a Democratic bill). They know how to work both sides of an issue when it suits them. But then, most politicians do.
211 posted on 03/20/2002 6:01:05 PM PST by TrappedInLiberalHell
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 201 | View Replies]

To: roachie
To: erk Well, it's time for me to move to New Zealand. Because CHICKEN$HIT, GUTLESS, HALFA$$ pseudo-conservative voters will go totally overboard about this and W will be out of office in '04, leaving us ripe for Evil Party domination. Why even give a damn anymore?

May I go with you? Hillary Clinton just got a free pass didn't she?

212 posted on 03/20/2002 6:01:08 PM PST by ladyinred
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: rwfromkansas
You need to get some principles, kneepad.

You're a kid. What the hell, at 18, do you know about "kneepads"? Your momma ought to spank your hiney.

213 posted on 03/20/2002 6:01:31 PM PST by sinkspur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 203 | View Replies]

To: jwalsh07
One of the usual conservative "Bushies" took umbrage when I said Republicans and conservatives were just Democrats in drag. Apparently a lot of you don't understand that being a conservative is meaningless unless you are first and foremost a Constitutionalist. Even the libertarians understand how bad CFR is. But pragmatic conservatives willing to play a part of the trading game between the left and right, are just part of a giant ratchet screwing us into socialist totalitarianism. Hope all the Bushies are satisfied now, there's more to come.
214 posted on 03/20/2002 6:02:02 PM PST by FastCoyote
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 199 | View Replies]

To: sinkspur
The hyperventilation over CFR has been Limbaugh-driven and ACU-driven.

MANY freepers were opposed to CFR LONG... BEFORE Limbaugh and ACU

It's about PRINCIPLES don't you get it?

Respectfully,

David

215 posted on 03/20/2002 6:03:02 PM PST by davidosborne
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 206 | View Replies]

To: FSPress
Secession for me! I am no longer an American; it is not me that has changed.
216 posted on 03/20/2002 6:03:32 PM PST by B. A. Conservative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: davidosborne
I am not a lawyer, but violating your OATH to SUPPORT and DEFEND the constitution IS a crime worthy of impeachment... REMOVAL from office... not jail...

Wouldn't that impeach the 60 senators and the (however many) Reps in the House who signed it? I can't see them voting to impeach Bush on something that they sent him in the first place. Or, even more laughably, voting to impeach themselves, one by one, until only the 'nay' voters are left in both houses of Congress. Hmm, maybe that's a good thing.

217 posted on 03/20/2002 6:03:54 PM PST by TrappedInLiberalHell
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 210 | View Replies]

To: sinkspur
What I have learned at FR. I guess this site is not a good influence on me or something.
218 posted on 03/20/2002 6:04:29 PM PST by rwfromkansas
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 213 | View Replies]

To: Congressman Billybob
BillyBob you have the most intelligent suggestion on the way this should have been handled. Unfortunately, "Carl" what-his name dosen't have a clue!
219 posted on 03/20/2002 6:05:00 PM PST by lawdog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 157 | View Replies]

To: NittanyLion
Sinkspur has apparently placed principles and Constitution beneath party.

And you don't know what you're talking about.

220 posted on 03/20/2002 6:05:32 PM PST by sinkspur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 209 | View Replies]

To: NittanyLion
Actually I am being honest. This is politics through and through and politics has been played by every President since and including George Washington.

Call me when you find a President that didn't or doesn't play politics.

221 posted on 03/20/2002 6:06:02 PM PST by Dane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 189 | View Replies]

To: timm22
How old are you?
222 posted on 03/20/2002 6:06:03 PM PST by goodnesswins
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 153 | View Replies]

To: sinkspur
BS. It is not over reaction and it has nothing to do with anybody else. Republicans are not worthy of being our elected representatives and neither is Bush. When America has had enough of the Democrats, we will either have some secessions or elect conservatives with principles.

Color me Libertarian and secessionist.

223 posted on 03/20/2002 6:06:46 PM PST by B. A. Conservative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 206 | View Replies]

To: dead
Your reply #25 hit the nail on the head. We're talking Quote of the Week here.
224 posted on 03/20/2002 6:06:50 PM PST by Inspector Harry Callahan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: erk
Meet the new boss.

Same as the old boss.

225 posted on 03/20/2002 6:08:08 PM PST by Jonathon Spectre
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sinkspur
I don't listen to Rush. I do take men at their words and when they break there word and their oath with one stroke of the pen, it causes me to hyperventilate and want to take them out behind the barn.

Can't help it, its who and what I am.

226 posted on 03/20/2002 6:08:22 PM PST by jwalsh07
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 206 | View Replies]

To: davidosborne
There is a suggestion worthy of consideration. Cheney might make a fine president. I know its wishful thinking cause he may already be calling the shots. That would really be a blow.
227 posted on 03/20/2002 6:08:52 PM PST by B. A. Conservative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 210 | View Replies]

To: FastCoyote
Lecture this.
228 posted on 03/20/2002 6:10:30 PM PST by jwalsh07
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 214 | View Replies]

To: Dane
Actually I am being honest. This is politics through and through and politics has been played by every President since and including George Washington.

Dane, he's picking the wrong issue to with which to play politics. Bush has as much as admitted he knows the bill is unconstitutional and will be struck down by SCOTUS. If he is to sign it now he will knowingly violate his oath, not to mention breaking a campaign promise. I understand the necessity to horde political capital for the big fights; this is one such fight. Yet it appears Bush will capitulate.

229 posted on 03/20/2002 6:10:41 PM PST by NittanyLion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 221 | View Replies]

To: TrappedInLiberalHell
Again.. it is about PRINCIPLE not about winning or losing.. when you stand on PRINCIPLE you ALWAYS win in the longrun..

FReegards,

David

230 posted on 03/20/2002 6:11:31 PM PST by davidosborne
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 217 | View Replies]

To: sinkspur
Bush won't lose two points

That's what his daddy said when he raised taxes.

231 posted on 03/20/2002 6:11:46 PM PST by AppyPappy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: TrappedInLiberalHell
He goes on record as being a liar in my book!
232 posted on 03/20/2002 6:11:59 PM PST by RAT Patrol
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: rwfromkansas
Starting when? When they are 2, 4, 8, 13? nope....not for it - kids don't have rights....hate to break it to you. (Other than the right to decent parents, that is.)
233 posted on 03/20/2002 6:12:05 PM PST by goodnesswins
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 127 | View Replies]

To: sinkspur
And you don't know what you're talking about.

You know the bill is unconstitutional, don't you? Yet it appears you are advocating Bush signing it for political gain. Is that not putting party above constitution?

234 posted on 03/20/2002 6:12:25 PM PST by NittanyLion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 220 | View Replies]

To: B. A. Conservative
If Bush can't veto an unconstitutional law when his approval rating is 80%, and make it stick on the basis of his integrity, then WHEN pray tell, would he ever make a principled stand? The liberal/conservative evil axis grows more powerful each day.
235 posted on 03/20/2002 6:12:25 PM PST by FastCoyote
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 227 | View Replies]

To: Inspector Harry Callahan
Well, repeat the Quote of the Week, Harry:

>>>If I wanted that kind of integrity, I could have voted for Gore.<<<

236 posted on 03/20/2002 6:12:38 PM PST by OwenKellogg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 224 | View Replies]

To: Interesting Times
There are a number of things conservatives can overlook, but criminalizing free speech isn't on the list.

I agree. I am more than disgusted that President Bush is signing this.....he has betrayed himself and all Americans by signing an unconstitutional bill into law.

237 posted on 03/20/2002 6:12:39 PM PST by nicmarlo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: davidosborne
MANY freepers were opposed to CFR LONG... BEFORE Limbaugh and ACU

Because McCain advanced it.

There's one constant principle in politics: THE GOP ALWAYS HAS MORE MONEY!!!

That money finds a way to get where it needs to go.

Marc Racicot never said a word against this CFR. I suspect he's already devised some ways around it.

Thomas More, in MAN FOR ALL SEASONS, said "What are the words? We must look at the words, because the words are important."

The words are important because they give us a way around them.

238 posted on 03/20/2002 6:14:35 PM PST by sinkspur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 215 | View Replies]

To: B. A. Conservative
I don't think there are enough principle minded people in congress to impeach ANYONE!!.. if they couldn't get Clinton for LYING under OATH and OBSTRUCTION of JUSTICE.. I doubt that this would ever go anywhere.. but if I were in office and was asked to vote for impeachment, I would stand on principle no matter how much I like EVERYTHING else, it is IRRELEVANT if you are willing to compromise principle for political gain.. period..
239 posted on 03/20/2002 6:15:00 PM PST by davidosborne
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 227 | View Replies]

To: Congressman Billybob
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.

Do you have a second job??

240 posted on 03/20/2002 6:15:23 PM PST by CedarDave
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 126 | View Replies]

To: B. A. Conservative
Color me Libertarian and secessionist.

You sound like the guy with the crayons. Color yourself.

241 posted on 03/20/2002 6:16:35 PM PST by sinkspur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 223 | View Replies]

To: sinkspur
The words are important because they give us a way around them.

THERIN lies the problem.. we should NOT be looking for a way around them.. we should STRONGLY OPPOSE it at FACE VALUE.. period

242 posted on 03/20/2002 6:16:52 PM PST by davidosborne
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 238 | View Replies]

To: mombonn
I can't believe he's throwing away all the integrity I thought he had.

He knows the Supremes will overturn the part about 60 days or whatever it is....He knows this, and you know it...

Apparently if you stip that away...it actually is really benificial to the GOP'rs

243 posted on 03/20/2002 6:17:30 PM PST by antaresequity
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Congressman Billybob
"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. "

He can still do this. He hasn't even received the bill, much less signed it.
As a matter of fact, I believe he should do this on the day he actually signs the bill for maximum effect.
Then, send it immediately to the USSC and have them expedite it.
It would be a done deal before it goes into effect and it will take care of the only issue McCain has.

Yep, my name is "Pollyanna". ;o)

244 posted on 03/20/2002 6:18:15 PM PST by dixiechick2000
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 157 | View Replies]

To: 68-69TonkinGulfYatchClub
Thanks for the ping. I'm not too happy right now.
245 posted on 03/20/2002 6:18:15 PM PST by Brownie74
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: FastCoyote
If Bush can't veto an unconstitutional law when his approval rating is 80%, and make it stick on the basis of his integrity, then WHEN pray tell, would he ever make a principled stand?

It's almost as if Bush is planning to use his political capital not on the statists to defend the Constitution but instead on -- us!

We will know shortly.

246 posted on 03/20/2002 6:18:48 PM PST by FreeReign
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 235 | View Replies]

To: davidosborne
Mitch McConnell coming up on FoxNews to talk about CFR and the constitutional challenges...
247 posted on 03/20/2002 6:18:51 PM PST by dittomom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 242 | View Replies]

To: sinkspur
You are avoiding the question. Why sign a bill you know is illegal? Political gain? Yeah, that's what I heard when GH Bush "compromised" with the Democrats and raised taxes. We were going to win in a landslide because we showed we could work with the Democrats. Yeah. Good move. Cost us the White House. Now Bush is going to expend his political capital signing a bill that shows NO interest in polls except on Capital Hill. What does he gain from this? Nothing. He'll just piss off the base. Brilliant. He has RINO's feeding him political advice just like his dad did.
248 posted on 03/20/2002 6:19:32 PM PST by AppyPappy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 238 | View Replies]

To: NittanyLion
Like I said before, when you find a President or politician who hasn't played politcs give me a call.

Why do I have a notion that phone call will never come.

BTW, I am not thrilled about him signing but can see the political reasons for doing so.

249 posted on 03/20/2002 6:20:19 PM PST by Dane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 229 | View Replies]

To: sinkspur
First Amendment

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Presidential Oath of Office

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of the President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the constitution of the United States."

This bill tears the first amendment apart. It specifically exempts the press from the onerous 60 day provisions. It is a disgrace and no President should sign it.

250 posted on 03/20/2002 6:21:04 PM PST by jwalsh07
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 223 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 151-200201-250251-300 ... 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