Posted on 03/20/2002 4:33:41 PM PST by 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.
###
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 by Registered
****************************
Registered, no matter how many votes are taken,
I will STILL have my God-given rights.
While I can accept some compromise, I can't accept a compromise
that both violates the law AND infringes on my rights.
BonnieJ, compromise does not excuse lying,
or oath-breaking, or violations of the law,
or interfering in the internal affairs of other countries.
Bush is as bad as Clinton.
Oh BS. Bush is supporting this to avoid the heat that Rats and the media would hit him with and at the same time takes an issue away fromt he Dems that he is too pro-buiness/anti-reform.
Lets talk in ten days.
How angry? You still going to vote for him next time?
Don't worry, you will regain your composure and vote for him next time, just like 90% of the others on this site. He knows you folks have no where else to go and he is taking advantage of it.
If I'm wrong about you personally, please forgive me.
That's your argument against Libertarians, that they have a birth defect? Hooo Ha Ha Ha! Not since gradeschool have I heard a taunt like that. And calling me junior, I guess I should call you granpa, that's gotta sting! Roe vs Wade was held Constitutional, doesn't stop anyone from bitching about it because it was crappy logic - the Constitution still is a damn fine document despite being sullied by morons. Pretty pathetic debating skills you employ Advogado.
I agree with you that all things being equal, a president should not sign something that he believes to be unconstitutional. But could not Bush say, that I regret that this Bill has provisions that I believe to be unconstitutional, but I am confident SCOTUS will promptly address those elements, and the Bill provides for fast tracking those issues? There are other provisions in the Bill, which are not unconsitutional, which I favor, and the bill has a severability clause which will allow those elements to survive even as SCOTUS sugically slices away the excesses. And the only way to get these good elements into law is for me to now sign this bill, with all its flaws. I do so ONLY BECAUSE I am CONFIDENT that those flaws will be struck down by SCOTUS, and thus will never have the pernicious effect of traducing the fundamental right of our citizens to free speech.
Or something like that. :)
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 by WOSG
****************************
The restrictions on "hard" money are more of an infringement on free speech than the "soft" money restrictions.
Soft money goes to the Party, which spends it according to it's own needs. Because the Party has so much more money than any one politician, members of the party have to toe the line to survive.
Hard money goes directly into the hands of the politician YOU like.
For instance, Ron Paul will never get the support of the Republican Party for a run at the Presidency, because he DOESN'T allow himself to be intimidated by the leadership. They will never give him the power to interfere with their policies.
Now, if I were a rich man, I could pay ALL of Ron Paul's campaign bills, because I believe in him, and I trust him. That is, I could if hard money contributions were allowed. Since they're not, I get to contribute my money to the Republican Party as a whole, and watch my money be frittered away on people like John McCain, Trent Lott and George Bush.
See, the hypothetical rich old me wants to "make a difference,"
but because of hard money restrictions,
I'm forced to finance the entrenched bureaucracies.
ANY restriction on campaign finance is a violation of free speech.
Oh BS.
Bush is supporting this to avoid the heat that Rats and the media would hit him with
and at the same time takes an issue away from the Dems that he is too pro-buiness/anti-reform.
# 542 by finnman69
****************************
Really?!
If you're right, George Bush is a corrupt man.
An evil man, intentionally violating the law to further his political career.
Then again, if I'm right, Bush is an evil man, purposely working to overthrow our freedom.
Or maybe the Democrats were telling the truth, >GASP< and George Bush really IS too stupid to be President.
Lets talk in ten days.
# 543 by VRWC_minion
****************************
Okay, VRWC_minion.
Yes, I would. They would be wrong.
VA Advogado, since when did a judge become more worthy of trust than I am?
I read the Constitution. I can think. I DON'T need someone else to tell me what it says,
any more than I need a holy man to tell me what the Bible says.
I have the right of free speech.
Campaign finance restrictions interfere with that right.
That's why they're called "restrictions."
The Constitution recognizes my right to free speech,
and says that the government WILL NOT interfere with that right.
Thus, the bill that President Bush has promised to sign IS un-Constitutional.
This better explains my feelings. I just can't get over the specific exempting of the media in this bill. It goes right up where the sun don't shine.
No your "right" to free speech was doubled in this legislation. Your "right" as a citizen to speak out in political advertisements was not touched by this legislation. In every way from paycheck protect to individual rights to support their candidates was broadened by this legislation. Should there be any limits to how much money corporations or unions be allowed to spend? Maybe not, but individual opportunity to participate was enhanced. I would counsel a little education on the issue before you make those pronouncements.
To: jwalsh07; sinkspur
Actually, John, a couple of justices might find that the 60 day gag thing is just duckey.
The Constitution is like the Bible.
So many folks suffuse it with so many different meanings..."
# 550 by Torie
****************************
In this case, there isn't any misunderstanding.
Citizens will be unable to participate fully within 60 days of an election,
while the media, which is NOT unbiased, and is NOT a citizen,
will have full power to influence the election.
How many people do you know who get involved in any election two months before the vote? Most people don't pay attention until the vote is eminent. If they notice a serious flaw in one man, or a wonderful qualification in another, they will be prevented the right to support their belief.
Someone may be able to SAY that isn't a violation of our freedom, but they would be lying.
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.