Yea! Bush might not suck so much after all!

[Novgrod]

Seems he's going to sign a campaign finance reform bill that would ban soft money.

Washington Post

 

[XMan]

It doesn't matter if he signs it or not, the Supreme Court isn't going to let it slide. It has too many provisions that break the First Amendement.

 

[Russ]

<< the Supreme Court isn't going to let it slide >>



Russ, NCNE

 

[Novgrod]

Supreme court is too big into interpretation not to let this 'un slide. Only a hard core strict interpreter would can it on those grounds. 'Sides, it's an insanely difficult case to make.

Just one man's opinion

 

[Orbius]

Well the Supreme Court already decided an election so let the 'Break the Constitution' party continue! Rock on dudes!

 

[Queasy]

"Seems he's going to sign a campaign finance reform bill that would ban soft money."

I'm sorry, but this is just a case of political grand-standing on both sides. This shouldn't be called a "Campaign Finance Reform" bill. It should be called an "Anti-Free Speech" bill. Or a "Adding New Loopholes for Politcal Donations" bill. My personal favorite is the "Incumbent Protection" bill.

If you actually read the bill, you'll see it does nothing to stop the kind of campaign contributions that Enron and Global Crossing engineered. In fact, it creates new loopholes for campaign contributions. On top of that, it bans any concerned individuals/groups from speaking for or against a candidate during the 60 days before the election. This actually ends up protecting the incumbent unless the opponent is super-rich and can afford commercials himself.

Go read articles concerning this from OpinionJournal.com and the Washington Times. Very informative and sheds light on what the Shay-Meehan bill is truly about.

Interesting Fact - John McCain added an exemption for Indian tribes in his McCain-Feingold bill. The single largest recipient of political donations by Indian tribes...John McCain. Things that make you go, hmmmm.

 

[Russ]

<< Only a hard core strict interpreter would can it on those grounds. >>



They already did so in 1976, and it was a much less constructionist court then.

Russ, NCNE

 

[Novgrod]

They already did so in 1976, and it was a much less constuctionist court then.

First, thanks for the word. I was looking for it; too lazy to check anywhere but the fading memory of highschool government.


Second, seems the court doesn't make its decisions in a vacuum, and my understanding is that the atmosphere is much more hostile towards soft money than it has been. ever.

Third, if the bill is, in fact, riddled with loopholes (and come to think of it, I should have expected just that) then maybe it'll save some people from wasting money on donations. Personally, I don't think the free speech claim holds, but that's just me.

Fourth, incumbents hardly need any more protection 🙂

Maybe they'll get off their high horse and institute term limits for themselves. To paraphrase Wayne's world, and maybe pigs will fly out of my bum.

 

[Queasy]

"Fourth, incumbents hardly need any more protection"

Well, really really insanely rich people like Jordan, Gates, etc don't need more money but they are constantly going for as much they can. Political incumbents are much the same way. If they see an opportunity to grab more power, they'll take it.

 

[JellyBaby]

<< Maybe they'll get off their high horse and institute term limits for themselves. To paraphrase Wayne's world, and maybe pigs will fly out of my bum. >>

The public call for this is not strong enough nor will members of Congress do this without a fight. Would you voluntarily agree to cut off the hand that feeds you? Senators and reps. are no different from the rest of us: numero uno comes first.

 

[Russ]

<< Maybe they'll get off their high horse and institute term limits for themselves >>



Even term limits might be on shaky ground from a Constitutional standpoint based on the argument that it adds a "qualification for office" not already stipulated. That's what happened here when an initiative passed. It was challenged by elected officials, and eventually shot down.

A better alternative, and one that would probably pass muster, would be to eliminate retirement benefits for elected officials. Then we might return to what our founding fathers had envisioned; temporary government service, rather then lifetime employment.

Russ, NCNE

 

[UltraQuiet]

<< A better alternative, and one that would probably pass muster, would be to eliminate retirement benefits for elected officials. Then we might return to what our founding fathers had envisioned; temporary government service, rather then lifetime employment. >>


Not to get off on too much of a tangent here or start a pissing contest but, the way I understand it the way the Congress was set up was for the House to be a temporary service type of thing with farmers,clerks, etc. coming to temporarily serve and the Senate was more of a permanent or "professional" body hence the longer term. I could be and probably am wrong. I have not really decided what I think is a good idea, but I don't think the founding fathers would want term limits in the Senate. But times change. Continuity however should be a consideration before enacting term limits.

 

[Russ]

Dave,

You're 100% correct on at least part of that. The intent was, indeed, for the Senate to be the sedate, rational and experienced half of the legislative branch, and the House to be the "in touch with the people" wild and wooly half. I'm not sure, though, if the intent was for Senators to be career politicians. Could be. It used to be that they were appointed by state governments, rather then elected, so you could be right on that score.

Russ, NCNE