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: erk
Okay, the younger Bush is both stupid and unreliable on a critical issue, like his father was before him. From a personal standpoint, I would like to rub his nose in it. From a professional standpoint, I will give it my all to defeat Shays-Meehan in the Supreme Court.

If my colleagues and I succeed in doing that, we will save Bush's bacon not because he deserves the help, but because the Constitution deserves the help.

Bush is now officially a wuss and I will distruct until proven otherwise his future statements on any subject.

Congressman Billybob

Latest column: "The Truman Factor."

51 posted on 03/20/2002 5:00:02 PM PST by Congressman Billybob
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: erk
Not that this wasn't expected. Oh, I forgot. The Republican Party is dead, and Bush is a one-term President. Whatever.

Hopefully, McConnell, ACLU, ACU, and others are ready to file a suit and get the 60-day restriction removed as soon as possible.

52 posted on 03/20/2002 5:00:04 PM PST by DallasJ7
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: VAwireguy
oh yeah I'm wishing I had voted for Pat B ...lmao

NOT

McConnel has already set it up to take it to court as soon as it is signed.

53 posted on 03/20/2002 5:00:27 PM PST by linn37
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: Don Carlos
Does anyone have a sense of how quickly the US Supremes will hear this case?
54 posted on 03/20/2002 5:01:01 PM PST by mwl1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: erk
Whenever we speculate how Bush is going to let us down we are normally happy with the final outcome. Bush hasn't played his cards yet. Let us wait to see how he handles it. He has a whole boat load of options yet.
55 posted on 03/20/2002 5:01:03 PM PST by VRWC_minion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dalereed
Yeah, and 78% think he should NOT sign it.

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

56 posted on 03/20/2002 5:01:22 PM PST by dittomom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

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

Not a defense, just an observation. Conservatives aren't any more known for their defense of free speech than liberals are. It depends on what the speech being targeted is, for both sides.

As for the unconstitutionality of this law, or course it is. But why act like this law is THE test? Congress passes laws every year, and presidents sign them, that are unconsitutional. The Supreme Court has already ruled on the speech issue presented in this law, and it WILL be struck down. Bush is fully aware of this, as are the politicians that passed it. This is all about politics, for both sides.

57 posted on 03/20/2002 5:01:51 PM PST by mlo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: VRWC_minion
I'm with you! This matter is far from over at this point.
58 posted on 03/20/2002 5:02:23 PM PST by kayak
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: anniegetyourgun
I'm with you there on why he is doing but, but I still dislike it intensely. This is a very bad decision. It was bad for the Congress to pass it, and bad for him to sign it. But these Repubs seem to want to go down the path of doing Demon-crat things so there are 'no issues' left. Duh, if we wanted a Democrat we could have voted for Gore.
59 posted on 03/20/2002 5:02:30 PM PST by WOSG
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: VAwireguy
I'm betting some of you on here probably wish that you did also!

I voted Keyes in '96 and 2000. I'm glad I NEVER considered Pat.

I'm disappointed in Bush, I held him in higher esteem.

60 posted on 03/20/2002 5:02:31 PM PST by mombonn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: godisright
What about all the congressmen who voted for it? I figure the ones who voted for it know they can find loopholes in the law as written.

Let me play devil's advocate for a moment. I admit not having read the finer points of the bill. Is it possible that we're overreacting? There are other things we can't do on television, but few people call those things unconstitutional. I ask this question in all seriousness, maybe this thread could use a cogent explanation of exactly what part(s) of the bill violate the first amendment. I'll probably end up agreeing with you, but I just want to understand this issue before running my mouth off.

61 posted on 03/20/2002 5:02:43 PM PST by TrappedInLiberalHell
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Eagle Eye
I was only off by one amendment.

Maybe they're starting with the 1st amendment and going down the list.

62 posted on 03/20/2002 5:03:04 PM PST by LiberteeBell
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: erk
Time to leave. Any of you who are upset by this and want to bail out of what seems to be becoming the Republicrat party, check out www.constitutionparty.com. Seriously.
63 posted on 03/20/2002 5:03:04 PM PST by Terriergal
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Congressman Billybob
Yes, the Constitution deserves to be defended. I'll be praying for you guys to prevail. God save the Republic.
64 posted on 03/20/2002 5:03:56 PM PST by dittomom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: erk
Trust this takes the sting out of the inevitable.
65 posted on 03/20/2002 5:04:09 PM PST by Askel5
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: VRWC_minion
I hope you are right but if he has a whole boatload of options, as you say, WHY would he issue a statement and put it on the White House website, saying that he WILL sign it?
66 posted on 03/20/2002 5:04:16 PM PST by Lorena
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: LiberteeBell
Maybe they're starting with the 1st amendment and going down the list.

Most assuredly.

67 posted on 03/20/2002 5:04:34 PM PST by Terriergal
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]

To: cactmh
I'm betting Pat Buchanan wouldn't have been making Mexican immigration gift trip! Its time to seriously look outside of the 2 birds of the same dirty feather!
68 posted on 03/20/2002 5:04:39 PM PST by VAwireguy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: erk
Buh-bye bush. Too bad so sad.
This, along with your blanket amnesty proposal for illegals (yeah, award them legal status for breaking the law), I am through with you. You are just like any other politicians after all.
69 posted on 03/20/2002 5:05:08 PM PST by Chong
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ken H
Someone is giving the President some very bad advice on many dometic issues, IMO.

I believe his name is Karl Rove

He is the one who was behind the tariff fiasco.

70 posted on 03/20/2002 5:05:26 PM PST by WOSG
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: mwl1
"Does anyone have a sense of how quickly the US Supremes will hear this case?"

Yeah, right after the overturn the Brady Bill.
71 posted on 03/20/2002 5:05:49 PM PST by 68-69TonkinGulfYachtClub
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: godisright
That one sentence is the EPITOME of political fence riding.

I think the one where he used "Excess" and "already been killed" to describe the embryos turned "stem cell lines" has it beat hands down.

72 posted on 03/20/2002 5:06:01 PM PST by Askel5
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Congressman Billybob
You hinted yesterday of a plan after it was signed by the Senate.,.,.,what has changed your mind?
73 posted on 03/20/2002 5:06:20 PM PST by estrogen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: Congressman Billybob
You hinted yesterday of a plan after it was signed by the Senate.,.,.,what has changed your mind?
74 posted on 03/20/2002 5:06:22 PM PST by estrogen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: erk
Well there you go. Anyone who thought George Bush was a man of principle better think again. He's a political opportunist and will do whatever it takes to stay in office.
75 posted on 03/20/2002 5:06:40 PM PST by Arkie2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mlo
I might agree, but this isn't simply about politics. It's about TRUST. We trusted the word of a man we all believed in. This was his word...."I will sign no campaign Finance Reform Bill that does not contain......." It doesn't contain the specifics Bush demanded. He signs it, he loses the trust of soooo many, and gives the libs a chance to shoot to kill. This is sad.
76 posted on 03/20/2002 5:06:41 PM PST by Nix 2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: Ken H
Someone is giving the President some very bad advice on many dometic issues, IMO.

megga dittos !!

I thought he would take the PRINCIPLED stand for Free Speech... instead it seems he is USING the SCOTUS to do his dirty work.... very disapointing...

David

77 posted on 03/20/2002 5:06:45 PM PST by davidosborne
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: erk
It seems like so many of the posters here are against CFR because of the concept that soft money contributions are a form of free speech under the constitution.

Am I missing some other reasons most people here are against this? I'm sort of up in the air at the moment, and trying to determine what I think.
78 posted on 03/20/2002 5:07:05 PM PST by jurisdog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sinkspur
In terms of hard money, the GOP will make out like bandits with this bill.

I always suspected you prefer cash rather than the Constitution.

79 posted on 03/20/2002 5:07:43 PM PST by Willie Green
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: VRWC_minion
Whenever we speculate how Bush is going to let us down we are normally happy with the final outcome. Bush hasn't played his cards yet. Let us wait to see how he handles it. He has a whole boat load of options yet.

In case you didn't notice, this statement came from the Office of the Press Secretary. I've stated numerous times, as recently as earlier today, that I believed the President would veto this.

I was wrong. I don't see how there will be a happy outcome to this based on today's statement. Bush's only card to play is a VETO. There wouldn't be enough votes to overturn that.

He signs, he loses - BIGTIME.

80 posted on 03/20/2002 5:07:52 PM PST by mombonn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: Lorena
WHY would he issue a statement and put it on the White House website, saying that he WILL sign it?

Based on that statement I expect he will sign it. But just like the stem cell research issue, Bush found a way to approve the research and protect future unborn. Lets see if he can thread this needle. BB's postings led me to relealize that there are other ways to win this even if the bill is law. Bush is the one to enforce the laws and he can simply state that those parts that are not constitutional will not be enforced.

81 posted on 03/20/2002 5:08:43 PM PST by VRWC_minion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]

To: 68-69TonkinGulfYatchClub
Yeah, right after the overturn the Brady Bill.

Don't forget that upon Ashcroft's first visit to Meet the Press post-confirmation he made quite clear that the overturning of Roe was not on this administration's agenda.

Maybe someday when we're not busy fighting Moral Wars we can clean house here at home where our Culture of Death and abrogation of the Constitution are concerned.

The War on Terrorism's going to end, right?

82 posted on 03/20/2002 5:08:47 PM PST by Askel5
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]

To: erk
Well... he's a one-termer. Its official now. He just signed his own death warrent. We conservatives wont forgive him.

But still, he beats the heck out of Gore. I still dont think I could bring myself to vote libertarian... yet. If BU

83 posted on 03/20/2002 5:08:47 PM PST by jude24
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

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

You're too mad.

Bush has guaranteed his re-election with this signature, since hard money limits are doubled, and Bush raised more hard money than any candidate in history in 2000.

And, for those who think most Republicans are going to vote against Bush because of CFR, think again.

Amnesty, maybe. CFR, not a chance.

Besides, there's no such thing as CFR. Lawyers are sitting in rooms right now devising ways to get around this bill.

And, that's assuming that the Supreme Court doesn't torpedo major portions of it, which is a faulty assumption.

Besides, I thought everybody on FR was going to vote third party or Democrat because of the "amnesty" (which isn't an amnesty but it doesn't matter).

84 posted on 03/20/2002 5:08:58 PM PST by sinkspur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: Terriergal
Maybe they're starting with the 1st amendment and going down the list.

God HELP the United States

85 posted on 03/20/2002 5:09:08 PM PST by davidosborne
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies]

To: linn37
and another damn thing I don't want to hear his crap about protecting the rights of the executive office if he won't protect the rights of the first amendment.

That hits the nail on the head!

86 posted on 03/20/2002 5:09:49 PM PST by Protect the Bill of Rights
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: VRWC_minion
Nice idea, what happens in a few years from now when someone else is running the show?
87 posted on 03/20/2002 5:10:35 PM PST by FSPress
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 81 | View Replies]

To: erk
This bill bans the right of people 17 and younger to send political contributions, even small ones. As an 18-year-old, this hits me close to home and Bush has lost my vote due to this evil law. I can't believe I am saying this, but Bush is dead to me. I hope he rots in hell.
88 posted on 03/20/2002 5:12:30 PM PST by rwfromkansas
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: erk
I have lost track of the number of issues that Pres. Bush has "lost respect & support" for on this forum! Partial stem-cell research funding, amnesty, hiring a gay, hanging out with Ted Kennedy, "homeland security", CFR, an endless list. I voted for him knowing he would disappoint me, it's inevitable. He is Pres. of all of us and compromise is the only way he can realistically govern. Now this will be taken to the courts by special-interest groups at both ends of the spectrum, & maybe finally Congress will get on to other business. This bill has dominated for months...years actually.
89 posted on 03/20/2002 5:12:47 PM PST by BonnieJ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mombonn
I'm disappointed in Bush, I held him in higher esteem.

After his reversal on federally funding stem cell research it was apparent that the man would deviate on his principles for political gain. This is just another example of his "Read my lips" genetics at work.
90 posted on 03/20/2002 5:12:52 PM PST by Registered
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: erk
UNFORGIVABLE NO OTHER WORD FOR IT.
91 posted on 03/20/2002 5:13:00 PM PST by OldFriend
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mombonn
Bush's only card to play is a VETO.

I too thought that as of yesterday but that isn't true. He can choose to announce he won't enforce the parts he believes are not constitutional.

92 posted on 03/20/2002 5:13:00 PM PST by VRWC_minion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 80 | View Replies]

To: 68-69TonkinGulfYatchClub
"The reforms passed today, while flawed in some areas, still improve the current system overall, and I will sign them into law"

"Flawed in some areas", how about unconstitutional. I am disappointed in reading this statement by President Bush, even though I suspected that this would be the outcome.

93 posted on 03/20/2002 5:13:31 PM PST by deadhead
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: godisright
well, it doesn't make a difference anymore, does it? real conservatives like us are just stuck out in the wind and we're going to have to either bend to fit the status quo or die trying in desparation. either lose some of our ways by a half-conservative or just throw them all away to liberals. either way, we're damned. It's almost time for a prayer session so I'll go fade away and not bother y'all anymore.
94 posted on 03/20/2002 5:13:53 PM PST by roachie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Willie Green
I always suspected you prefer cash rather than the Constitution.

I prefer that people I support WIN. The Constitutionality of this is yet to be determined.

Lots of people on this site supported the line item veto, which was also clearly unconstitutional, and was ruled as such, even though lots of Republicans voted for it.

No one promoted the line-item veto more than Ronald Reagan.

95 posted on 03/20/2002 5:14:02 PM PST by sinkspur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 79 | View Replies]

To: rwfromkansas
RW we're all angry bout this but watch your words..U don't want the Fed Gestapo coming to question you.
96 posted on 03/20/2002 5:14:03 PM PST by VAwireguy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 88 | View Replies]

To: rwfromkansas
RW we're all angry bout this but watch your words..U don't want the Fed Gestapo coming to question you.
97 posted on 03/20/2002 5:14:10 PM PST by VAwireguy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 88 | View Replies]

To: VRWC_minion
I agree. Bush seems to have a big picture perspective which I confess I don't often see. Of course, the perspective from which he views things is rather unique.

He seems to be effectively accomplishing a certain amount of "incrementalism". Of course conservatives, me included, would rather things change significantly and swiftly. One of the things I always thought about Clinton was that the legislation he was signing was not as devastating as the work being done by the everyday appointees he had put in place. I trust that this is being duly accomplished in the other direction, as I am familiar with a very high level appointee of one of the largest cabinet departments.

Having said all that, I don't like the legislation, think it is an attack on the 1st Amendment and still hope he doesn't sign it; but like you, I'll stick around to see how the second half of the game goes.

98 posted on 03/20/2002 5:14:12 PM PST by erk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: erk
Remember the Internet Freedom Foundation (IFF)'s Black Web Site campaign, when Congress threatened to crackdown on Internet content (i.e., censorship)? One could cynically ask where are they and the ACLU are when CFR actually does threaten free speech via the Internet, but let's look beyond that obvious double standard liberal free speech advocates employ to further unstated agendas.

Maybe we should instead turn our web site backgrounds to red. Red would both denote our anger about Congress attempting to legislate away our Constitutional right to free (political) speech, but also to be a not so subtle reference to the communist tactics used to usurp our capitalist marketplace for political communications. It also brings to mind the blood shed by our troops to secure our right to free speech. And of course red has a psychological effect of inducing passion and tension.

And here is our poster boy to tell 'em what they can do with CFR.

A photo of the Capital building with a red tint might be and interesting ploy too.

99 posted on 03/20/2002 5:14:13 PM PST by anymouse
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: FSPress
Nice idea, what happens in a few years from now when someone else is running the show?

Foru years ought to be enough for Billybob to get it thru SC.

100 posted on 03/20/2002 5:14:18 PM PST by VRWC_minion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 87 | 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