No company is going to risk giving money to gun nuts and clinic bombers, however who can say a bad word about the helping the environment and Bambi.
Posted on 03/22/2002 10:32:00 AM PST by Luis Gonzalez
Edited on 04/29/2004 2:00:18 AM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
National parties: Opponents argue that the national parties will be the big losers because they will be deprived of unregulated "soft money" contributions, which amounted to $500 million in the 2000 presidential election. Candidates would have to look elsewhere for support, probably reducing the party's influence. Supporters say the law would force the parties to reach out to less affluent donors and expand grass-roots activities, eventually making the parties stronger.
(Excerpt) Read more at cnn.com ...
No company is going to risk giving money to gun nuts and clinic bombers, however who can say a bad word about the helping the environment and Bambi.
Specificaly the bill imposes ludicrous limits on individuals and businesses from contributing to one party or another in paid ads specificaly. Read it for yourself, it is common knowledge that campaign finance reform imposes limits on individual contributions on speech BUT NOT ON DIRECT BRIBERY.
Since when had the state powers to control what one does with his or her pocket money aside from blatant cases of bribery and prostitution where money is specificaly used as a contract payment for a politician or a whore to give up his or her jurisdiction while he or her was voted or exists to exert such independent jurisdiction?
This campaign finance reform is a loophole for bribery for politicians. It does not go after corruption and illegal contracts in politics and politicans, it goes after individuals who make personal campaigns of their own, not the one bribing the bastards.
READ IT FOR YOURSELF. THEY WANT TO BAN FINANCIAL INFLUENCE. WHERE IN THE HELL DOES THE CONSTITUTION RECOGNIZES "INFLUENCE" AS A DE FACTO CONTRACT INVOLVING JURISDICTION VIOLATION AND EXPLOITATION? SO WHAT NOW? BLAME WOMEN AS PROSTITUTES IF THEY WILLINGLY TAKE A RIDE IN RICH MEN'S CARS HITTING ON THEM?
THE AMERICAN PEOPLE NEED TO GET A FREAGING GRIP ON REALITY!!!
THIS SEARCH THIS DOCUMENT GO TO Next Hit Forward New Bills Search Prev Hit Back HomePage Hit List Best Sections Help Doc Contents
| GPO's PDF version of this bill | References to this bill in the Congressional Record | Link to the Bill Summary & Status file. | Full Display - 114,378 bytes. [Help] |
THIS SEARCH THIS DOCUMENT GO TO Next Hit Forward New Bills Search Prev Hit Back HomePage Hit List Best Sections Help Doc Contents
Come on Luis, you know the constitution.
I have puzzled over something that seemed so unlikely a position for President Bush to take. He has always been committed to building the party, he remembers what happened to his dad, and he tries to do the right thing for the country.
Here is GraniteStateConservative's post from early this morning (in reponse to a complaint by a poster that the SC was not the sole arbiter of constitutionality):
Well, if you live in the country, you don't really have a choice. The SCOTUS is the only constitutionally empowered branch to adjudicate. Bush has to execute laws-- even if he disagrees with them or their constitutionality. The only branch the public respects on adjudication is the SCOTUS. Would you believe Clintoon or Al Gore or Tom Daschle if they declared legislation constitutional? Of course not, and neither would most Americans.
This bill has been around for like 8 years. It is not going any where. If Bush vetoed it, the Democrats and McCain would spend the next months up to November talking about how that politicians who are pupperts of corporate interests (Bush, Senate and House GOPers who voted against it) don't want the legislation. They wouldn't try to fix the bill. They want this as an issue more than anything.
Imagine if this November, the midterms go as they have historically for the past 70 years (except for a year of FDR's and Clintoon's administration) and both the House and Senate go Democrat. Imagine if Gore wins the electoral vote and not just the popular vote in 2004. These aren't far-fetched. Gore would sign this law in Feb. of 2005 and we'd be right where we are now-- with the SCOTUS having to kill this. The GOP wanted line item veto, but SCOTUS killed it (do you hear people campaign on line item veto anymore?). The SCOTUS killed separate, but equal, they killed gun-free school zones in 1995. A President can't kill an issue and Congress can't. Only SCOTUS.
McCain is going to have a legacy of authoring partially unconstitutional legislation. Bush in his statement on the bill said that he thinks there are questions of constitutionality on this that SCOTUS has to rule on.
525 posted on 3/22/02 3:48 AM Pacific by GraniteStateConservative
This makes as much sense to me as anything I have read. What do you think?
(B)EXCEPTIONS.—The term ‘electioneering communication does not include
(i)a communication appearing in a news story,commentary,or editorial dis tributed through the facilities of any broadcasting station,unless such facilities are owned or controlled by any political party,political committee,or candidate;or
Amazing huh?
That means that Greenpeace can't buy an ad calling Bush an enviro-rapist using money from that guy who runs RJ Reynolds. They would have to prove that the money came from PEOPLE, exercising their First Amendment right.
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.