Violating the Constitution in order to live at the expense of others

Josey1

Violating the Constitution in order to live at the expense of others http://www.NewsAndOpinion.com | There's a story about Catholic priests who contracted to have a new church built for their congregation. When the church was completed, and just before the priests came for their final inspection, the contractor cemented a Buddhist statue in the center of the altar. Seeing the statue, the priests were incensed, demanding its removal before they would pay and take possession of the church. The contractor happily complied. The contractor anticipated the priests' response, but that was a part of his agenda. He built the statue to divert the priests' attention from other possible shortcomings of the construction job. That's precisely what Congress has done with the McCain-Feingold/Shays-Meehan campaign finance reform bill that passed the House by 240-189 and is now before the Senate. A primary provision in the bill is that it prohibits people and groups from running political ads in newspapers and broadcast media that refer to a particular candidate within 60 days of a general election and 30 days of a primary election. As such, it is a clear violation of the Constitution's First Amendment, which says, "Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech. ..." When the House of Representatives passed their version of the bill, Shays-Meehan (H.R. 2356), they knew it violated the First Amendment. You say, "C'mon, Williams, congressmen would never knowingly violate the Constitution; they took an oath of office to uphold and defend it!" During the debate, Rep. Henry Hyde introduced an amendment that read: "Notwithstanding any provision of the Act, and in recognition of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, nothing in this Act may be construed to abridge those freedoms found in that Amendment, specifically the freedom of speech or of the press. ..." The Hyde Amendment went down to crushing defeat. The U.S. Supreme Court, in the landmark 1975 decision Buckley vs. Valeo, ruled, "So long as persons or groups eschew expenditures that in express terms advocate the election or defeat of a clearly identified candidate, they are free to spend as much as they want to promote the candidate and his views." Congress' campaign reform measure clearly violates the Constitution's First Amendment ,and they all know it. They fully expect the U.S. Supreme Court to rule parts of the bill unconstitutional but, like the contractor who built the Buddhist statue on the Catholic church altar, Congress is using the part that violates free speech to divert attention from other incumbent protection features of its campaign finance reform bill. That's why they made it "severable," meaning that if parts of it are ruled unconstitutional the remainder becomes law. Proponents of "campaign finance reform" make the flimflam argument that money has corrupted politics. If campaign finance reform becomes law, money will still go to politicians -- albeit by a different mechanism. The reason is simple: Congressmen are in the business of granting favors and exacting tribute. If various interest groups want favors, they will find a way to get money to congressmen. If CEOs want to pay tribute to protect their companies from harmful federal laws and regulations, they will find a way to get that tribute into the political coffers of a congressman. The bottom line is that if politicians weren't in the business of granting favors and exacting tribute, every single issue surrounding campaign finance reform would be irrelevant. After all, why would anyone spend money for influence, access, favors and tribute if the only thing that politicians do is to live up to their oaths to uphold and defend the Constitution? But, I'm afraid, most Americans want congressmen to do something else -- to violate the Constitution in order to make it possible for them to live at the expense of others. http://www.newsandopinion.com/cols/williams.html

Josey1

Senate Passes Campaign Finance BillBy Jim BurnsCNSNews.com Senior Staff WriterMarch 20, 2002Adds comments by President Bush(CNSNews.com) - After a seven-year battle, the Senate on Wednesday passed and sent to President Bush the McCain-Feingold campaign finance bill that is designed to change the way political campaigns are paid for. The vote was 60-40. The House passed similar legislation earlier.President Bush issued a written statement saying he would sign the bill, even though he considers it "flawed" in some places."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," President Bush said in the statement. He indicated he likes the provisions on "full and timely disclosure of campaign contributions."Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), who led the opposition to the bill, said a legal fight is certain. He said a legal team is ready to fight the bill through the court system. He also said he is prepared to be the lead plaintiff."I am consoled by the obvious fact that the courts do not defer to the Congress on matters of the Constitution. We have allowed a few powerful editorial pages to * us into infringing the First Amendment rights of everyone but them," said McConnell. The National Rifle Association said the Senate threw in the towel, according to spokesman Chuck Cunningham."It's a constitutional abomination and it will be challenged in the judicial process all the way to the Supreme Court if necessary," Cunningham said in an interview with CNSNews.com.However, he said the NRA is still planning its strategy to challenge the legislation."There is a legal team which is being formed to challenge this. The good news is that it won't have any direct effect on this election, because the proponents of the legislation had so little confidence in their own bill that they delayed the effective date until the day after the election," said Cunningham. If signed by the president, the bill would not take effect until Nov. following the congressional mid-term elections. "It (the bill) is a blackout period on political speech by everyone other than the media," Cunningham added.The measure would bar both the Republican and Democratic Parties from receiving soft money and would impose strict curbs on how even state parties may use soft money related to federal elections.It would also prohibit special interest groups from broadcasting ads that refer to a specific candidate within 60 days of a general election, and 30 days of a primary. Beginning January 1, 2003, individuals would be able to give $2,000 per candidate for each primary and general election, compared with $1,000 today.Sen. Bill Frist (R-Tenn.), chairman of the National Republican Senatorial Committee, said the bill will protect incumbent politicians."It will protect incumbents and career politicians. Money in politics flows like water, and if you block it off in one direction, it just finds another way around. The total ban on soft money will simply drive more money into the hands of unregulated, unreported special interest groups," said Frist. The League of Women Voters hailed the Senate's move."It has taken nearly a quarter of a century, but today the U.S. Congress has moved closer to beating back the tidal wave of special interest money," said Carolyn Jefferson-Jenkins, president of the League of Women Voters."Today's Senate action will seal off the stream of soft money and sham issue ads that have flooded our political system since the late 1980s. These reforms will take us a long way towards cleaning up the muddied waters of America's political system," said Jefferson-Jenkins.Sen. Phil Gramm (R-Texas) voted against the bill."I am profoundly opposed to this bill, because it is clearly unconstitutional," said Gramm during Senate floor debate.He also criticized Sens. John McCain (R-Ariz.) and Russ Feingold (D-Wis.) for proposing the legislation."I believe that they are both wrong. But they're not wrong-hearted. In my opinion, they are wrong headed on this issue," said Gramm.Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) said on Capitol Hill that he was confident that proponents would prevail."I think we will do fine in court. I'm not overly concerned, but we have to be prepared," said McCain.Senate Democratic Leader Tom Daschle (D-S.D.) praised the bill's passage saying, "Let us take the power away from special interests and give it back to the American people where it belongs." http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewPolitics.asp?Page=\Politics\archive\200203\POL20020320d.html

Josey1

How did YOUR Senator Vote on "Campaign Finance Reform"?Senate Roll Call Votes Taken TodayTODAY'S FLOOR VOTESThe following roll call votes took place on the Senate floor today.*******************************************************************(Rollcall Vote No. 54 Leg. )March 20, 2002 6:23AMVOTE TITLE: Passage of H.R. 2356BILL NO.: H.R. 2356REQUIRED FOR MAJORITY: 1/2RESULT: Bill Passed YEAS --- 60 Akaka Domenici Lincoln Baucus Dorgan Lugar Bayh Durbin McCain Biden Edwards Mikulski Bingaman Feingold Miller Boxer Feinstein Murray Byrd Fitzgerald Nelson (FL) Cantwell Graham Reed Carnahan Harkin Reid Carper Hollings Rockefeller Chafee Inouye Sarbanes Cleland Jeffords Schumer Clinton Johnson Snowe Cochran Kennedy Specter Collins Kerry Stabenow Conrad Kohl Thompson Corzine Landrieu Torricelli Daschle Leahy Warner Dayton Levin Wellstone Dodd Lieberman Wyden NAYS --- 40 Allard Frist Murkowski Allen Gramm Nelson (NE) Bennett Grassley Nickles Bond Gregg Roberts Breaux Hagel Santorum Brownback Hatch Sessions Bunning Helms Shelby Burns Hutchinson Smith (NH) Campbell Hutchison Smith (OR) Craig Inhofe Stevens Crapo Kyl Thomas DeWine Lott Thurmond Ensign McConnell Voinovich Enzi*******************************************************************(Rollcall Vote No. 53 Leg. )March 20, 2002 12:50PMVOTE TITLE: Motion to Invoke Cloture on H.R. 2356BILL NO.: H.R. 2356REQUIRED FOR MAJORITY: 3/5RESULT: Cloture Motion Agreed to YEAS --- 68 Akaka Durbin Lugar Baucus Edwards McCain Bayh Feingold Mikulski Biden Feinstein Miller Bingaman Fitzgerald Murray Boxer Frist Nelson (FL) Breaux Graham Nelson (NE) Byrd Grassley Reed Cantwell Hagel Reid Carnahan Harkin Rockefeller Carper Hollings Sarbanes Chafee Inouye Schumer Cleland Jeffords Smith (OR) Clinton Johnson Snowe Cochran Kennedy Specter Collins Kerry Stabenow Conrad Kohl Stevens Corzine Kyl Thompson Daschle Landrieu Torricelli Dayton Leahy Warner Dodd Levin Wellstone Domenici Lieberman Wyden Dorgan Lincoln NAYS --- 32 Allard Ensign Murkowski Allen Enzi Nickles Bennett Gramm Roberts Bond Gregg Santorum Brownback Hatch Sessions Bunning Helms Shelby Burns Hutchinson Smith (NH) Campbell Hutchison Thomas Craig Inhofe Thurmond Crapo Lott Voinovich DeWine McConnell http://www.senate.gov/legislative/legis_act_rollcall_today.html