Statement by the President: "... I will sign (CFR) into law."

Office of the Press Secretary ^ | March 20, 2002 | George W. Bush

[erk]

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

[jwalsh07]

You're a damned fool if you think the section of the constitution requiring Congress to appropriate funds every two years to fund our standing Armies prevents us from fighting wars.

A big damned fool.

[Mulder]

This is very bad, and represents just one in a series of disappointments from Bush and the Republicans (amnesty, federalization of airport security, surrender on vouchers, surrender on significant tax cuts this year, etc...).

As someone who voted for, contributed to, and volunteered for the Bush campaign, what did his victory accomplish? The only pro-freedom inititiative that has been enacted has been the tax cut, and that was only because Forbes and Quayle forced Bush to offer a tax cut plan during the campaign.

The anti-freedom initiatives are many: CFR, amnesty for illegals, more funding for ATF, federalized airport security, more federal spending, no guns for pilots, etc...

The "lesser of two evils" arguement doesn't really cut it anymore when our Freedom and our Rights are at stake.

Just think about this: If Bush will sell us out when his approval rating is at 85%, what do you think he'll do to us when it's at 55%... or 45%?

[concerned about politics]

Your advocacy is the reason why we have Bush ready to sign into law methods to usurp the Constitution.

But you libertarians don't vote Republican anyway. What does your opinion of Bush matter? You didn't vote for Bush in the first place! Of course you'd be Bush bashers, no matter what he does.

[DLfromthedesert]

Maybe a 16 or 17 year old made money mowing lawns or baby-sitting and want to support with $10 a candidate of their choice. This is a great way to introduce these young people to politics. If not the direct money contribution, can they donate envelopes and buttons?

Anyway, if they allow non-citizens to donate, why shouldn't they allow teens who ARE citizens that want to be part of the process?

[DJ88]

Listen. If Bush vetoed this law, it could and would very well come up again. If he signs it, then sends it to SCOTUS (as he has said in his own press release that parts of it are unconstitutional), SCOTUS could rule on it and render the decision that it was UNCONSTITUTIONAL and it would never be brought up again...ever. Unless someone wants to make an amendment to the Constitution, and that would never pass, I have to say that although my first reaction was HORROR..I think he may have found a way to make sure the Constitution will never be used as toilet paper again.

[concerned about politics]

Anyway, if they allow non-citizens to donate, why shouldn't they allow teens who ARE citizens that want to be part of the process?

Public school pressure and propaganda. The libs would use the children. "Hey kid, mail this envelope."

[Buckeroo]

Yeah like the Congressional Budget ledger's magic column of imaginary, "surplus income." You fail to see with any clarity the precise issue.

Charlatans have through all of mankind's history taken people by force. America has been more difficult to do this because of our revolutionary background. But I see that you side with methods of "slick legal mumbo-jumbo" that performs the same outcome of removing our Constitution. Yet the Constituion contains no amendments that permit your focus of posts.

[concerned about politics]

Listen. If Bush vetoed this law, it could and would very well come up again. If he signs it, then sends it to SCOTUS (as he has said in his own press release that parts of it are unconstitutional), SCOTUS could rule on it and render the decision that it was UNCONSTITUTIONAL and it would never be brought up again...ever.

EXCELLENT POINT! GO BUSH!!!!!

[Sangamon Kid]

The Loser column is full of a lot of pricipled guys who ran for office.

The unprincipled become the politicians, the principled become academics. 20 years from now the ideas of the academics will be implemented by the politicians.

[gov_bean_ counter]

You fail to see with any clarity the precise issue.

You are an idiot. Come back after you have had some fiscal law introduction, appropriations law... something of substance. Every danged thing appropriations law addresses is driven by the Constitution.

[DJ88]

Sometimes the "tapping of the fingers" actually works. :-) I don't just spout off the first thing that comes to mind. It takes a little work, but it's sometimes useful. ;-)

[jwalsh07]

20 years from now the ideas of the academics will be implemented by the politicians.

God forbid.

[concerned about politics]

20 years from now the ideas of the academics will be implemented by the politicians

You mean 20 years from now the politicians will cave to the teachers unions? Where have you been? The Marxist indoctrination centers rule the left wing!!!

[TrappedInLiberalHell]

It's too bad Bush can't submit it for review BEFORE signing it. That way, when the USSC rules on the free speech clauses, Bush can veto it, say he is doing so because of the oath he took, and send it back so they can strike the clause(s) from the bill and send it back to him to sign.

After all, if it's a Constitutional issue, wouldn't he want to have that in writing from the final arbiter of the Constitution BEFORE signing it? Or am I being to idealistic?

[Buckeroo]

SCOTUS is capable of determing law under the Constitution. Nothing about interpreting the same.

Article III, section 2:

The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, .....

You folks argue like sick folks within an insane asylum.

[Pit1]

I agree with you 100%. But if you take a look at Bush, he doesn't get out in front of any issue but the war. He let his judge fry before he came to his aid way late.

He could have been all over this CFR; way out in front and the people would have understood. He is a very poor educator.

And his leadership team in congress is just as bad. What a pity.

[hchutch]

That is a good point. SCOTUS kills things PERMANENTLY. A veto is temporary, and its use is decided by whoever is elected. Nobody elects the Supreme Court justices.

[Rome2000]

It can't go the court until it is law which by coincidence happens one day after the next election

And it will be struck down before the election in 2004, which means a lot of people are getting upset about nothing.

Political reality is something that must be faced dead on.

Sending a man to the execution chamber or soldiers to their death takes guts too.

Sometimes you have to do something you don't want to do for the sake of the greater good.

Klintoon made the libs seethe when he signed Welfare Reform, it insured his reelection.

When PSYCHO McCain and his media buddies go screaming at the Supreme Court instead of W in 2004, people will be saying that this was the right thing to do.

[Buckeroo]

Come back when you see that laws not addressing the scope of the Constitutional foundations of our nation are worthless trash, passed by worthless trash that you believe in.

Your laws are supposed to have amended the Constitution; not ignore it.