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

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 401-450451-500501-550551-581 last
To: ThomasJefferson
I'll be honest with you. I don't know if I'd vote for him or not. I guess alot of it depends on the other choices. I was a big-time supporter on this forum, but I called a spade a spade when he did or promised things I was against. I'm experiencing serious buyer's remorse right now over the amnesty crap and CFR. If the bill is flawed, you don't sign it. It violates the Constitution...that's not a "flaw"...that it doesn't address one thing or another may be a flaw...a flaw is a minor problem or inconvenience ...violating the Constitution is not a minor problem or inconvenience. Bush is wrong on this...no two ways about it. I can only hope and pray that the SCOTUS will gut this piece of crap.
551 posted on 03/21/2002 5:48:23 PM PST by RayBob
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 545 | View Replies]

To: WOSG; jurisdog; erk
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 by jurisdog

**************************************

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.

552 posted on 03/21/2002 7:02:36 PM PST by exodus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 103 | View Replies]

To: finnman69
"Bush is supporting this tyrannical measure because he wants to limit our ability
to effectively fight the un-Constitutional actions of our government.
# 540 by exodus

**************************************

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.

553 posted on 03/21/2002 7:13:30 PM PST by exodus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 542 | View Replies]

To: VRWC_minion
"At least David Koresh had to TELL his followers about his position.
Bush's followers just instinctively KNOW how special he is."
- exodus

**************************************

Lets talk in ten days.
# 543 by VRWC_minion

****************************

Okay, VRWC_minion.

554 posted on 03/21/2002 7:17:06 PM PST by exodus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 543 | View Replies]

To: VA Advogado; tpaine
To: tpaine
"...Libertarians have some sort of birth defect that prevents them from acknowledging
that the courts know better than they do in reading the constitution.
So this means if the courts uphold CFR you wont bitch about it being unconsitutional?"
# 483 by VA Advogado

****************************

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.

555 posted on 03/21/2002 7:41:21 PM PST by exodus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 483 | View Replies]

To: Torie
I have no doubt that there will be two justices who will time limit speech, none at all.

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.

jw's op ed

556 posted on 03/21/2002 8:11:46 PM PST by jwalsh07
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 550 | View Replies]

To: Torie
Disregard that link. :-} I'm currently lost in a lost world. Later.
557 posted on 03/21/2002 8:13:09 PM PST by jwalsh07
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 556 | View Replies]

To: jwalsh07
Good idea. :)
558 posted on 03/21/2002 8:20:01 PM PST by Torie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 557 | View Replies]

To: exodus
I have the right of free speech. Campaign finance restrictions interfere with that right. That's why they're called "restrictions."

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.

559 posted on 03/21/2002 8:20:05 PM PST by Texasforever
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 555 | View Replies]

To: Torie; jwalsh07; sinkspur
"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 by jwalsh07

**************************************

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.

560 posted on 03/21/2002 8:25:57 PM PST by exodus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 550 | View Replies]

To: exodus
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.

Untrue assertion

— The First Amendment. In 1976 the Supreme Court threw out mandatory limits on candidate spending while agreeing to limits on contributions. Opponents say the soft money ban and the restrictions on issue ads in the final days of an election violate First Amendment free speech rights. Supporters dispute this, saying that groups and individuals can still run issue ads if they use hard money and disclose the source of the ads.

561 posted on 03/21/2002 8:29:32 PM PST by Texasforever
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 560 | View Replies]

To: Texasforever
So why do you rally around a President that has a sworn duty to uphold the Constitution, while he spits on it saying his decisions are a USSC problem?
562 posted on 03/21/2002 8:33:55 PM PST by Buckeroo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 561 | View Replies]

To: Texasforever
What is the difference between soft money and hard money for issue advocacy groups? I don't get it. I thought the bill banned ads by advocacy groups in the 60 day window. I am not sure if the ban only applies if a candidate is mentioned, or banned period. Do you know?
563 posted on 03/21/2002 8:35:40 PM PST by Torie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 561 | View Replies]

To: Buckeroo
So why do you rally around a President that has a sworn duty to uphold the Constitution,

I am just inserting facts into the sea of hysteria. Both the Immigration Reform act and the CFR have yet to be debated on this forum in a factual way. Both issues are just being used as red meat for the hyenas to scrounge a meal from.

564 posted on 03/21/2002 8:37:59 PM PST by Texasforever
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 562 | View Replies]

To: Texasforever
Your facts have little to do with a President that has a sworn duty to our Constitution. IT IS OUR CONSTITUTION! IT IS NOT THE STINKING GOVERNMENT'S AND YOU MAKE POSTS THAT AGREE WITH ANY STINKING REPUBLOCRAT UNDER THE SUN NOT REALIZING THAT YOU GIVE CREDENCE TO THOSE THAT ARE AGAINST THE CONSTITUTION!

You see, government does not abide by the Constitution because you believe in smiling faces of politicians that have contempt for the basics of our nation.

565 posted on 03/21/2002 8:46:14 PM PST by Buckeroo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 564 | View Replies]

To: Texasforever
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.

# 555 by exodus

**************************************

To: exodus
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.
# 559 by Texasforever

****************************

Oh, good. I'm so glad.
Is it true, Texasforever?

Can I really contribute ALL my money to the candidate of my choice,
hard money, with NO restrictions?

You know that's not so.
Why do you put "right" in quotation marks?
Do you think political speech isn't really a right?

So nice, my government is going to ALLOW me to "double" my free speech rights.
Texasforever, government has no power to grant a right. A right that is allowed is not a right.
However, a right CAN be infringed, and that is what is happening to our free speech.

You completely miss the point of rights, Texasforever.

"...Should there be any limits to how much money
corporations or unions be allowed to spend? Maybe not..."


Neither unions or corporations are persons. Neither one is a citizen, and neither one is allowed to vote. Neither one should be allowed to contribute at all. However, if the individual members want to contribute all they own, THEY should not be restricted at all.

566 posted on 03/21/2002 8:46:48 PM PST by exodus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 559 | View Replies]

To: Torie
What is the difference between soft money and hard money for issue advocacy groups? I don't get it. I thought the bill banned ads by advocacy groups in the 60 day window. I am not sure if the ban only applies if a candidate is mentioned, or banned period. Do you know?

I only know what I get out of my own reading that seems to be confirmed by those that are paid to analyze the bill. What the advocacy ban seems to be targeting is both parties using soft money to secretly funnel to advocacy groups to run the final attack ads to avoid the spending caps. We saw that with the Texas guys that ran the ads in New York and then it was found out they were using party money to do so. Hard money is the direct citizen contributions either on their own or through PACS. As long as that is where the money is coming from then there is no restriction on the ads, The National parties and to a lesser extent the State parties have to stand down in the 30 days before a primary or 60 days before a federal election. We also saw it with Unions having money funneld back to them by the DNC to run their attack ads.

567 posted on 03/21/2002 8:49:37 PM PST by Texasforever
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 563 | View Replies]

To: Texasforever
So if the issue advocacy groups get their money from other than the parties, they can bash any candidate that they want in the 60 day window on TV 24 hours a day? I don't believe it. Convince me.
568 posted on 03/21/2002 8:52:23 PM PST by Torie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 567 | View Replies]

To: exodus
Can I really contribute ALL my money to the candidate of my choice, hard money, with NO restrictions?

No and you could not before this law either. What you can do is contribute twice as much now. Don't play games exodus you are not prepared. I don't mind arguing the constitutional basis because I would tend to agree it is dubious BUT this bill is better than the CF laws we did have.

569 posted on 03/21/2002 8:53:56 PM PST by Texasforever
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 566 | View Replies]

To: Texasforever
"No and you could not before this law either." -- Texasforever, answering a question from exodus about campaign finance limits imposed upon Congress

Wanna bet some REAL_MONEY?

570 posted on 03/21/2002 8:57:37 PM PST by Buckeroo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 569 | View Replies]

To: Texasforever
"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."
- exodus

**************************************

Untrue assertion
— The First Amendment. In 1976 the Supreme Court threw out mandatory limits on candidate spending while agreeing to limits on contributions. Opponents say the soft money ban and the restrictions on issue ads in the final days of an election violate First Amendment free speech rights. Supporters dispute this, saying that groups and individuals can still run issue ads if they use hard money and disclose the source of the ads.
# 561 by Texasforever

****************************

"...the Supreme Court threw out mandatory limits on candidate spending while agreeing to limits on contributions..."

Isn't that what I've been saying??
What if I don't WANT to run an ad?
What if I want to give all my money to Joe Blow, and let him spend it any way he thinks best?

Not everybody is a marketing specialist, Texasforever. Why should I be forced to either hire one or run ineffective, amateurish ads instead of giving my money to a man I trust to do right?

571 posted on 03/21/2002 9:01:28 PM PST by exodus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 561 | View Replies]

To: Torie
See the second item under exceptions:

`(3) ELECTIONEERING COMMUNICATION- For purposes of this subsection--

`(A) IN GENERAL- (i) The term `electioneering communication' means any broadcast, cable, or satellite communication which--

`(I) refers to a clearly identified candidate for Federal office;

`(II) is made within--

`(aa) 60 days before a general, special, or runoff election for the office sought by the candidate; or `(bb) 30 days before a primary or preference election, or a convention or caucus of a political party that has authority to nominate a candidate, for the office sought by the candidate; and

`(III) in the case of a communication which refers to a candidate for an office other than President or Vice President, is targeted to the relevant electorate.

`(ii) If clause (i) is held to be constitutionally insufficient by final judicial decision to support the regulation provided herein, then the term `electioneering communication' means any broadcast, cable, or satellite communication which promotes or supports a candidate for that office, or attacks or opposes a candidate for that office (regardless of whether the communication expressly advocates a vote for or against a candidate) and which also is suggestive of no plausible meaning other than an exhortation to vote for or against a specific candidate. Nothing in this subparagraph shall be construed to affect the interpretation or application of section 100.22(b) of title 11, Code of Federal Regulations.

`(B) EXCEPTIONS- The term `electioneering communication' does not include--

`(i) a communication appearing in a news story, commentary, or editorial distributed through the facilities of any broadcasting station, unless such facilities are owned or controlled by any political party, political committee, or candidate;

`(ii) a communication which constitutes an expenditure or an independent expenditure under this Act;

`(iii) a communication which constitutes a candidate debate or forum conducted pursuant to regulations adopted by the Commission, or which solely promotes such a debate or forum and is made by or on behalf of the person sponsoring the debate or forum; or

`(iv) any other communication exempted under such regulations as the Commission may promulgate (consistent with the requirements of this paragraph) to ensure the appropriate implementation of this paragraph, except that under any such regulation a communication may not be exempted if it meets the requirements of this paragraph and is described in section 301(20)(A)(iii).

572 posted on 03/21/2002 9:11:40 PM PST by Texasforever
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 568 | View Replies]

To: Texasforever
"Can I really contribute ALL my money to the candidate of my choice, hard money, with NO restrictions?"
- exodus

**************************************

To: exodus
No and you could not before this law either. What you can do is contribute twice as much now. Don't play games exodus you are not prepared. I don't mind arguing the constitutional basis because I would tend to agree it is dubious BUT this bill is better than the CF laws we did have.
# 569 by Texasforever

****************************

That's my point, Texasforever. Both before and after this bill, government infringes on our freedom.

No joke, I'm glad to hear you say that you agree that restrictions on spending are un-Constitutional.
You're right, I haven't read the bill. I don't always have time to research everything before I post. However, no matter what the bill "allows," it doesn't remove all restrictions on a citizen's ability to participate in elections.

I know that the restrictions are there to "protect" us from those mean ol' special interests, but I would rather brave that danger than have my government restrict MY power to act on my own. I shouldn't have to say "pretty please" before I speak. I don't NEED permission. I have the right to be heard.

573 posted on 03/21/2002 9:18:40 PM PST by exodus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 569 | View Replies]

To: Texasforever
"...The term `electioneering communication' means any broadcast, cable, or satellite communication which--

(I) refers to a clearly identified candidate for Federal office;

(II) is made within--

(aa) 60 days before a general, special, or runoff election for the office sought by the candidate; or `(bb) 30 days before a primary or preference election, or a convention or caucus of a political party that has authority to nominate a candidate, for the office sought by the candidate; and

(III) in the case of a communication which refers to a candidate for an office other than President or Vice President, is targeted to the relevant electorate..."

****************************

Maybe I misunderstood that, Texasforever,
but it seems to say that in addition to the 60 day restriction,
there is also a 30 day restriction on the preliminary elections.

I am not allowed to run an ad that mentions my candidate by name,
and I can't run ads only in the area effected by the election.

In other words, I can only run ads that support a political party, not my man,
and I have to pay for that generalized party propaganda over a large area,
not in the region I'm interested in.

I don't consider that freedom, Texasforever.

574 posted on 03/21/2002 9:41:23 PM PST by exodus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 572 | View Replies]

To: Texasforever
EXCEPTIONS- The term `electioneering communication' does not include--

...(ii) a communication which constitutes an expenditure or an independent expenditure under this Act;...
# 572 by Texasforever

****************************

What does that mean?
An ad can't be paid for, unless it's counted as a expenditure??

An expenditure is a cost.
Is the whole bill null and void if I claim that I spent money on the ad I paid for?

575 posted on 03/21/2002 9:49:03 PM PST by exodus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 572 | View Replies]

To: exodus
am not allowed to run an ad that mentions my candidate by name, and I can't run ads only in the area effected by the election.

Political Parties cannot run those ads. Independent organizations or individuals that use "hard money" not party campaign funds, are not under such restrictions. Let's say you are bill gates, you can buy every advertising minute right up to poll closure. You have to take the body of the regulation in concert with the exceptions.

576 posted on 03/21/2002 9:50:34 PM PST by Texasforever
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 574 | View Replies]

To: exodus
An expenditure is a cost.

That's right. It is a lame attempt to skirt the 1973 court decision based on the false definitions of expenditures vs donations. That is why the issue will be moot the moment the USSC gets hold of it. The Supremes don't like their past decisions monkeyed with. I have a feeling that the entire bill could be found unconstitutional. The beauty of that is, CFR is a dead issue instead of being brought up over and over and over again.

577 posted on 03/21/2002 9:55:42 PM PST by Texasforever
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 575 | View Replies]

To: Texasforever
Well, I never claimed to be a good politician.
Maybe I'm wrong about Bush. I really hope that I am.
I have trouble accepting his actions today,
but maybe in 10 years I'll realize what a genius he is.

Goodnight, Texasforever.
I've got to get up early.
I'll check the thread tomorrow.

578 posted on 03/21/2002 10:06:12 PM PST by exodus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 577 | View Replies]

To: Texasforever
So it has nothing to do with money, and its source, and does have to do, with either referencing a candidate, or if that won't fly, bashing a candidate. Referencing versus bashing should be fun to litigate, assuming SCOTUS buys off on it, which is highly doubtful.
579 posted on 03/21/2002 10:17:39 PM PST by Torie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 572 | View Replies]

To: exodus
Actually I really think it is more about politics.. IMHO, President Bush see's this as a polical victory to maintain an "image" of "compromise" with the Democrats.. However on matters of clearly established constitutional principles (Freedom of Speech) there should be NO COMPROMISE, even it were "unpopular"...

David

580 posted on 03/22/2002 3:09:13 AM PST by davidosborne
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 540 | View Replies]

To: timm22
If a person is paying TAXES on the money....then, yes, they can donate......if NOT, then no....and if they are on the public "dole" then NO, then they should not be able to donate (in my perfect world....LOL)
581 posted on 03/25/2002 7:13:03 PM PST by goodnesswins
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 471 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 401-450451-500501-550551-581 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