President Signs CFR Act, Statement by the President 3/27/2002

whitehouse ^ | 3/27/2002 | President George W. Bush

[TLBSHOW]

President Signs Campaign Finance Reform Act

Statement by the President

Today I have signed into law H.R. 2356, the "Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002." I believe that this legislation, although far from perfect, will improve the current financing system for Federal campaigns.

The bill reforms our system of financing campaigns in several important ways. First, it will prevent unions and corporations from making unregulated, "soft" money contri-butions -- a legislative step for which I repeatedly have called.

Often, these groups take political action without the consent of their members or shareholders, so that the influence of these groups on elections does not necessarily comport with the actual views of the individuals who comprise these organizations. This prohibition will help to right that imbalance.

Second, this law will raise the decades-old limits on giving imposed on individuals who wish to support the candidate of their choice, thereby advancing my stated principle that election reform should strengthen the role of individual citizens in the political process.

Third, this legislation creates new disclosure requirements and compels speedier compliance with existing ones, which will promote the free and swift flow of information to the public regarding the activities of groups and individuals in the political process.

I long have believed that complete and immediate disclosure of the source of campaign contributions is the best way to reform campaign finance.

These provisions of the bill will go a long way toward fixing some of the most pressing problems in campaign finance today. They will result in an election finance system that encourages greater individual participation, and provides the public more accurate and timely information, than does the present system. All of the American electorate will benefit from these measures to strengthen our democracy.

However, the bill does have flaws. Certain provisions present serious constitutional concerns. In particular, H.R. 2356 goes farther than I originally proposed by preventing all individuals, not just unions and corporations, from making donations to political parties in connection with Federal elections.

I believe individual freedom to participate in elections should be expanded, not diminished; and when individual freedoms are restricted, questions arise under the First Amendment.

I also have reservations about the constitutionality of the broad ban on issue advertising, which restrains the speech of a wide variety of groups on issues of public import in the months closest to an election. I expect that the courts will resolve these legitimate legal questions as appropriate under the law.

As a policy matter, I would have preferred a bill that included a provision to protect union members and shareholders from involuntary political activities undertaken by their leadership.

Individuals have a right not to have their money spent in support of candidates or causes with which they disagree, and those rights should be better protected by law. I hope that in the future the Congress and I can work together to remedy this defect of the current financing structure.

This legislation is the culmination of more than 6 years of debate among a vast array of legislators, citizens, and groups. Accordingly, it does not represent the full ideals of any one point of view.

But it does represent progress in this often-contentious area of public policy debate. Taken as a whole, this bill improves the current system of financing for Federal campaigns, and therefore I have signed it into law.

GEORGE W. BUSH

THE WHITE HOUSE,

March 27, 2002.

[Mulder]

And, folks, this bill HAD to go to the Supreme Court NOW while we still have enough Justices on it who value the Constitution, to settle this issue for the future.

While they're at it, why don't they pass bills to seize our houses, imprision us without trial, and march us off to the gas chambers? Then the Supreme Court will "settle the issues for the future"!

The truth is that this issue was settled over 200 years ago. No President, Congress, or Supreme Court, has the authority to restrict the Free speech of men and women.

The problem is that the politicans (of both parties) hate the Constitution and hold it in contempt.

[Tolerance Sucks Rocks]

You make do with what you have, you don't surrender.

I'll remember that advice when Hitler and Stalin (figuratively speaking) are our only choices in a presidential election...

[cmotormac44]

which is still no excuse to make light of either of our handles---we shall see who is incorrect in 'reading thetrea leaves'----good fortune to you

[Tolerance Sucks Rocks]

Don't worry; I treat your name like plutonium from now on. :-)

[Osinski]

Hey Bush...kiss it.

[poet]

"is why exactly the firm defenders of the Constitution--Republicans, voted for this garbage."

Because there is no diff between the republicrats and the democrats. They are (by and large, but, not all) RATS!

[TLBSHOW]

Do you know the rats want you to say that? Do you?

[patriciaruth]

O'Conner wants to retire. She decided not to retire last summer because Jeffords switched control of the Senate confirmation process, and she is hoping that time will correct that. But she isn't going to wait around forever. With the campaign finance bill coming to the Court soon, she may stay long enough to rule on that.

[Texasforever]

I'm not exactly Mensa material

Thanks for your honesty.

[Aric2000]

If they do then all Bush is "guilty" of is signing a bill that an overwhelming house majority supported. We want our politicians to represent us and Bush would be doing just that.

What the devil are you talking about? THe bill is unconstitutional, PERIOD, it is so blatant it is unreal. If the Supremes actually let this thing go, then we are in REAL BIG trouble. If the constitution can be ignored because a majority thinks it OK, then we are not a Representative Republic, we are a Democracy, and that is just plain SICK!! THe constitution is the rule book, and it was created so that the majority wouldn't always get what they wanted, because sometimes what the majority wants is VERY VERY BAD!! And in this case, it is VERY obvious why the constitution was written as it was.

If the Superemes do uphold this piece of trash, the constitution is just so much toilet paper...

[TLBSHOW]

The rats hope you say that, did you know they planned on it? They are a low down dirty creature. Those Rats!

[TLBSHOW]

Oh Buck don't tell me the rats snookered you too with their rat plan.

[Texasforever]

Hey Bush...kiss it.

You got class you ain't even used yet.

[poet]

"If we don't get a majority Senate,"

So, you are saying that we give up our principles JUST to get a majority in the senate. How can a person like that be trusted?

[FreedominJesusChrist]

"The rats hope you say that, did you know they planned on it? They are a low down dirty creature. Those Rats!"

I am beginning to feel as if I am in an outpatient ward!

[patriciaruth]

why don't they pass bills to seize our houses,

They already have; it's called the IRS.

However, despite rumors, Chicken Little, the sky is not falling.

[Commie Basher]

a politician can never be too far from where the majority of the people are.

That may be a good excuse for leaving bad enough alone, but not for making things worse.

I can understand Bush not pushing for a deeper tax cut if the marjority wasn't there. But that'd be no excuse to sign a tax increase. Ditto on CFR.

[TLBSHOW]

You voted for Bush right? Then don't let a plan that the rats hatched stop you from voting for Bush again. I will post their plan and expose their dirty little secret.

[patriciaruth]

YOU didn't give up your principles.

Bush didn't give up his.

You two have different principles. He believes in living to fight another day. You have the mentality of a suicide bomber.

[FreedominJesusChrist]

"However, despite rumors, Chicken Little, the sky is not falling."

Now, that wasn't very nice either. :)