"Eleven Republicans Helped Pass the Bill" (CFR RINO Traitors)

Its hard to believe that two democrats had the intestinal fortitude to defy the leftist-socialist that run their party with an iron fist while at the same time these so-called Republicans were selling out the Constitution and their oaths of office!

Hard to believe Arlen Specter voted with the Dems on this…

Owl_Eagle

”Guns Before Butter.”

Jeffords is an IINO (independent in name only).... he takes his marching orders from the socialist pigs with a "D" by their names.

Some, I can see why they did it....but Luger and Cochran didn't have to because the voters in their states (IN and MS) would have been ok without this---Thompson really shouldn't have because he's out next time anyway. I don't know if NM and VA voters would have minded (or noticed) either way.

Who were the Dems voted with us?

I told Thad's office yesterday I would vote for his RAT opponent this fall, and that he had violated his oath of office and betrayed his party.

Probably has something to do with Scottish law, I bet.

Scottish law required him to....;-)

As bad as this legislation is, it's worse than you think.

I don't know if Primaries are exempted and have no reason to believe that they are, this means four FOUR MONTHS out of every year, it is ILLEGAL to inform voters.

I am of the opinion that it is The Informed Voter makes up the base of Conservative support for any given candidate. Will the Informed Voter be able to survive even if they make the Endangered Speicies list?

=Maelstrom=

Beat me to it!!!!

Well, I'm in NM. I noticed. I'm absolutely disgusted that my senator voted for this. I thought he was a 'good guy' (way better than the local Sandinista-style leftists around here). I even worked on his campaign locally. I called his local office to express my anger and disgust at his vote. They sent me back his statement and I responded, for what it's worth.

FLOOR STATEMENT BY SENATOR PETE V. DOMENICI ON CAMPAIGN FINANCE REFORM March 20, 2002

Mr. President, I rise today to speak about Campaign Finance Reform. I want to express my concerns about this legislation and explain why I decided to vote for it in spite of those concerns.

I believe there are problems with the way we finance campaigns in this country. Many Americans feel there is too much money in politics. They believe this money is a corrupting influence on the politicians they send to represent them in Washington, D.C. Reports of politicians taking money from foreign sources, while already illegal, has served to strengthen the perception that money rules the political process.

The large number of extremely wealthy candidates who spend large amounts of their own money to finance their campaigns reinforces this perception. Many people believe that candidates are attempting to buy their way into office. For that reason, I am very pleased that the version we will be voting on contains my wealthy-candidate provision. By enacting this common sense provision, the playing field will be leveled for candidates who are not able to spend unlimited amounts of their own money. Instead, this legislation will raise the limits on contributions to their campaigns in proportion to the amount of personal money that the wealthy candidate spends.

Reports of large donations by corporations and unions lead many to believe that access to politicians is for sale only to the highest bidders. Many will argue that a few corrupt politicians are the problem rather than the system. I believe this is true, but for many disenchanted voters, perception is reality. Because people are disgusted with the system, many choose not to participate. Our system is lesser for that lack of participation.

It is for these reasons that I have decided to vote for Campaign Finance Reform. It is a vote that in many ways represents the lesser of two evils. On the one hand, we can do nothing and continue with a system that discourages many from participating. Or, we can do something to change this perception, even if it does so in a form that is significantly less than perfect.

When I voted for McCain-Feingold in the Spring of last year, I did so with reservations. I also expressed my hope that the House would improve on it and, if it came back to the Senate, we would have an opportunity to clear up any remaining problems.

While this legislation did pass the House, and the House did improve it in some ways, the House did not address all of my concerns. In fact, they contributed to them in some ways. In the original Senate-passed version, we added the Levin amendment so state parties could compete with other outside groups. Unfortunately, the House weakened this provision, and now the state parties will be at a significant disadvantage when it comes to promoting candidates and issues. I think it is only fair that these two groups should be able to compete on a level playing field. An additional concern I have with this legislation is the “Coordination” provision. As this legislation currently defines it, there will be a great deal of uncertainty about what is considered “coordination” between a candidate and parties or outside groups. I believe we should keep the current rule which requires agreement or formal collaboration to establish “coordination.”

Perhaps my greatest concern is about the Constitutionality of the provision that prohibits “electioneering communication” within the last 60 days of a general election or 30 days of a primary. There is very little doubt that the Constitutionality of this and other provisions will be challenged shortly after this legislation is signed into law. Fortunately, the expedited review clause requires anyone who challenges the Constitutionality of this legislation file suit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. A three-judge panel will decide the case and any appeal will be directly to the U.S. Supreme Court. This expedited review process will ensure that all questions about the constitutionality of this legislation will be resolved swiftly so that any unconstitutional provisions are quickly stricken.

Normally, the Senate would have the opportunity to make the small changes that most agree would make this legislation much more effective. I am disappointed that the most adamant Senate proponents of this legislation bunkered down to prevent any improvements. I understand that they are concerned about the success of this legislation should it go to back to the House or to Conference. Unfortunately, this concern will probably prevent us from doing as good a job as we should have. This leaves us with two disappointing choices: send an imperfect bill to the President or do nothing at all. I will vote for this legislation because I believe in this instance that something is better than nothing.

I yield the floor.

My response:

I'm still really, really disturbed and disgusted by Sen. Pete's vote.

From his response:

>>Many Americans feel there is too much money in politics. They believe this money is a corrupting influence on the politicians they send to represent them in Washington, D.C. Reports of politicians taking money from foreign sources, while already illegal, has served to strengthen the perception that money rules the political process.<<

Money cannot corrupt some one who is not already dishonest and corruptible.

So because we have dishonest politicians, Pete voted to damage the citizens constitutionally protected right to free speech because of a mistaken perception by uninformed voters!?

I feel sick....

>>It is a vote that in many ways represents the lesser of two evils. On the one hand, we can do nothing and continue with a system that discourages many from participating. Or, we can do something to change this perception, even if it does so in a form that is significantly less than perfect.<<

Less than perfect!? It is blatantly in-your-face unconstitutional.

>>Perhaps my greatest concern is about the Constitutionality of the provision that prohibits "electioneering communication" within the last 60 days of a general election or 30 days of a primary. There is very little doubt that the Constitutionality of this and other provisions will be challenged shortly after this legislation is signed into law. Fortunately, the expedited review clause requires anyone who challenges the Constitutionality of this legislation file suit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. A three-judge panel will decide the case and any appeal will be directly to the U.S. Supreme Court. This expedited review process will ensure that all questions about the constitutionality of this legislation will be resolved swiftly so that any unconstitutional provisions are quickly stricken.<<

When Pete became a senator, he took an oath to uphold the Constitution. Voting for something blatantly unconstitutional with the caveat that: "Oh, well, the Supreme Court will probably nix it anyhow." is definitely not upholding the Constitution.

His duty to uphold the Constitution as a senator must not bow to the mistaken perceptions of uninformed voters. Voter 'participation' does not trump the First Ammendment!

The fact that he considered curtailing citizens rights to free speech the lesser of two evils is incredible to me. That is very nearly the greatest of evils! The founding fathers of this nation led a revolution over such restrictions on life and liberty.

I'm ashamed now that I supported Pete in the past. If there is 'too much money in politics', I will do my part to end that by not donating money to his campaign ever again. He has lost my family's, friend's and co-worker's support.

Sincerely,

Thompson really shouldn't have because he's out next time anyway.

Thompson’s headed to Hollywood.

He wants Valenti’s job (President of the Motion Picture Association of America) and he’s kissing a little liberal ass to grease the skids.

Sellout.

Two Democrats also crossed party lines, saying "no" to a campaign finance overhaul. They are John Breaux of La.and Ben Nelson of Neb.

Fred Thompson had absolutely nothing to lose by voting against as he has already announce that he will not seek re-election. So it is not political capital he wants. The only other reason I can think of is that he has made some kild of back room deal that he can profit personally from.

LOL It was close! I see I'm not the only freeper that remembers that. heh heh

Besides Thompson, and possibly Dick Lugar, who else on this list surprises you?

THERE ARE NO REAL REPUBLICANS IN THE NORTHEAST. They only run as republicans 'cuz there is only one line on the democratic ticket.

Ah.......it hasn't been signed yet.

...or, Hillary's FBI files strike again.

What's the big frikin' deal with CFR?

From what I know, it won't kick in until after the 2002 elections, and then it's on a fast track to the Supremes.

Jeez,,,another new law in Washington that won't change a thing.

Trust me on this.