Bush Signs Campaign Finance Bill; NRA Sues

Josey1

Bush Signs Campaign Finance Bill; NRA Sues NewsMax.com WiresThursday, March 28, 2002 WASHINGTON - President Bush on Wednesday signed campaign finance legislation that restricts speech and bans unregulated donations to political parties."I believe that this legislation, although far from perfect, will improve the current financing system for federal campaigns," Bush said in a statement.The measure immediately drew legal challenges. Within a short time of Bush's signing, Sen. Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., had filed suit, as had National Rifle Association. Both denounced the law's infringement on freedom of speech. The law "eviscerates the core protections of the First Amendment by prohibiting, on pain on criminal punishment, political speech," said a legal complaint filed on behalf of NRA and its political victory fund."We are proud to be one of the first plaintiffs to formally ask the federal court to invalidate these new limits on the political speech of ordinary citizens because we believe that this law cannot be allowed to stand, not even for a moment," stated Wayne LaPierre, executive vice president of the gun rights group.Bush signed the bill as he traveled to Greenville, S.C., and Atlanta to talk with emergency workers and on campaign fund-raising jaunts for Reps. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., and Saxby Chamblis, R-Ga.The U.S. Senate approved the legislation on March 20 on a 60-40 vote that came hours after a last-ditch attempt to filibuster the bill. It was an identical version of the measure passed in February by the U.S. House of Representatives, avoiding a conference committee that could have been used to kill the bill.The campaign finance bill was sponsored by Sens. Russ Feingold, D-Wis., and John McCain, R-Ariz. Upon learning Bush signed the bill, McCain issued a statement saying, "I'm pleased that President Bush has signed campaign finance reform legislation into law."'I May Hesitate'While traveling through El Salvador on Sunday, Bush joked with reporters about placing his name on the bill once it arrived at the White House: "It will probably take about three seconds to get to the W, I may hesitate on the period, and then rip through the Bush."The law bans unlimited contributions, known as "soft money," to national political parties and restricts issue ads aired by interest groups before elections. Bush had called the measure "flawed" but had said he would sign it."I wouldn't have signed it if I was really unhappy with it. I think it improves the system," Bush told reporters during a stop at Greenville firehouse. "And it improves the system because it enables an individual to give more money. And I want to do is have a system that encourages more individual participation, as well as more disclosure."Still, he said, he had been concerned about a system where money was given to entities and stakeholders had no say. He said he was concerned mostly about corporate shareholders and labor union members not having the ability to object to how their money was being spent. However, although no one is required to buy stock in any company, many workers must pay union dues to have a job.Opponents of the bill, such as McConnell, say the new law represents an unconstitutional limit to political speech. They note that limiting political advertising by non-affiliated groups will protect incumbents, further empower the media and remove the ability of citizens to band together over common political causes.McCain said last week the scandal surrounding bankrupt Enron Corp., and revelations that the energy trader had donated money to 72 of 100 senators and had pushed electric supply and commodities deregulation though the U.S. Capitol and state houses, helped the cause.Copyright 2002 by United Press International.All rights reserved. http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2002/3/27/135423.shtml

daddo

I've been a Bush fan for some time,but this "I know it has flaws but......" just don't cut it. Bush is being too lazy to demand rights protections. He has lied to us all about protecting our liberties. A chain is as strong as its weakest link and this bill had a very weak link which needed attention. How much tax dollars is it going to take to fix this? I'm more than upset- I'm outraged. We need a law that states "anyone submitting a bill that clearly will deprive any American of his/her constitutional rights will be charged with tyranny and sentenced as such". They took an oath. (their words mean nothing). They are nothing but legal criminals- no better than the thief on the corner.

gskyhawk

daddo: you are a 100% right, any public servant that breaks their oath of office should have the book thrown at them!!!!!!

Rembrandt

....I don't support his signing the bill for all the above reasons, but consider this....there is a battle in a world many are not familiar with, the political battle. Now we can all rant and rave about politicians and the deals they cut...make no mistake, political manuvers are a way of the culture and are not going away. It's best to try and understand the bill signing with political implications in the mix. The biggest pusher for this bill was John McCain, who just happens to also be a political adversary of GWB. Now Mr Bush knows McCain is not going away soon...he can make a lot of trouble in a Senate that is not in Bush's majority. If he turns McCain into a worse political enemy than he already is...this works in the favor of Tom Daschel. I think Bush knows that there is a very high likelyhood the bill will be overturned by the Supreme Court. It's a calculated risk to give McCain a crumb now rather than turn him into a party killing pitbull. Notice that there was no signing ceremony or cameras for this event?.....that is extremely significant, this did not give McCain the photo opportunities and media attention he so desires. If Bush really supported this bill, don't you think he would have made all he could of it to the media?...the key to this political manuver is keeping an eye out for what you have not seen.....Campaign reform was never a hot burner issue to the American public. Why divert unecessary attention, publicity, and political capital for this minor battle? I know some are going to say this is not a minor issue, it's about our Constitution....and I agree. The political game is played much like chess....you may sacrifice a small player to achieve a game win later. Not everyone will be content with this type of political gamesmanship, but this is what Bush has chosen to do. If the Supreme Court lets it stand, then Bush looses core support from Conservatives....if it is turned over by the Court, everyone will be relieved and we'll all go onto the next hot issue...and McCain will be toothless for all intents and purposes. I personally think GWB could veto this and not suffer a political backlash....his numbers are strong enough to weather this....but so were his Father's numbers right after the Gulf War....and he lost getting a second term....This may be weighing on the minds of GWB's political advisors.

.250Savage

A very sage assessment, Rembrandt.

Submariner .

WELL I AGREE HE IS TRYING TO TAKE SOME OF THE LIBS FIRE AWAY FROM THEM BUT AT THE RATE HE IS SIGNING LIBERAL LEGISLATION WE MAY AS WELL HAVE VOTED FOR GORE.YES YES I KNOW BUSH IS BETTER FOR THE COUNTRY THAN GORE ITS NOT EVEN CLOSE BUT CANT HE COMPROMISE WITH OUT GIVING THE LIBS EVERY SINGLE PIECE OF GARBAGE LEGISLATION THEY WANT

---

Truck Driver,Submarine Veteran,Rusty Wallace fan,and piss poor typist E-MAIL WNUNLEY@USIT.NET