No, Bush should sign it, despite my reservations. Campaign finance is an enormously important issue, and it needs to be addressed even though some proposals may ultimately be held unconstitutional. The worst that happens if this passes is that enforcement gets held up for a couple years while the issue works its way through the courts. At the end of the process, we’ll have a much better idea of what’s constitutional and what isn’t, plus we’ll have an act that establishes the principle that spending money and free speech are not synonymous.
No, that’s not what I (intended to have) said. What is invalid is flatly declaring that it is unconstitutional without providing anything more than a conclusive argument for that position. Which is, I believe, what december did.
No, actually, I think that one of the constitutional stumbling blocks that campaign finance reform has run into in the past has been the position that giving money to a political campaign qualifies as a form of “speech”.
“Free speech” does not equal “speech without limits”. Free speech has always had limits (libel, obscenity, call to riot, and sedition, amongst others).
I’m not aware of any court decisions on the constitutionality of neutral polling place laws. As far as I know, it’s a foregone conclusion that the government can exclude campaigning at polling places.
**But it’s not speech everywhere and it’s not during no specific event; it’s speech in certain fora and during a specific time period preceding a specific event.
What I don’t understand is how the very strict limits on hard money are constitutional while less strict limits on soft money are not. In my opinion, donations to political parties given without much regard to whether they will be used for speech at all (the Democratic National Committee is, after all, counting on using a lot of its soft money from the next campaign to pay for a new headquarters building, not something I would characterize as a “speech act”) should be readily regulatable as non-speech conduct without much regard at all to the First Amendment. I should think that the First Amendment really only comes into play when a donor gives money for the explicit purpose of facilitating a particular instance or series of instances of speech. And, to me, hard money sounds closer to this than soft money.
I take it you mean “What is invalid is flatly declaring that it is unconstitutional while providing anything less than a conclusive argument for that position”. Even that I disagree with; I think that it is reasonable to interpret OPs in GD to be a statement of opinion open to challenge. So you can very well challenge the assertion that it is unconstitutional, and dismiss his argument if your challenge is not met with a satisfactory response, but I don’t think demanding that there be a defense before there has even been a challenge is reasonable.
Before you said “To me, at least, the idea that giving someone money equates to a speech act is absurd.” Of course it is absurd to say that giving money, in general, is a form of speech, but that is not what’s being claimed. What’s being claimed is that paying someone to speak for you is, essentially, a form of speech.
But those are all limits that attach to the speech, not the speaker. Discriminating among speech (“you can’t say that because it’s slander”) is very different from discriminating among speakers (“you can’t say that because you’re rich”).
If you are claiming nothing more than that limits within polling places are constitutional, then I don’t see how that is relevant. Polling places are either owned by the government, or else the owner has agreed to make it available to the government. Either way, it is the governent’s to do with as it wishes. In the case of a TV station which is neither owned by the government nor has an agreement with the government, the government has no right to dictate what can be said.
You do have a point there. If a group is claiming speech protection for money, it should use that money for speech, not for administrative purposes.
Were Bush to do that (assuming he feels the same way as you do about the constitutionality of the bill), he would be derelict in his oath to uphold the Constitution. I’ve expounded on this point at greater length above, but Bush has an obligation to come to his own determination of the constitutionality of the bill, independent of judicial precedent, and to veto that bill if his view says that any part of the bill is unconstitutional.
The judiciary may be the final arbiters of what is and isn’t constitutional, but that doesn’t mean they are the sole arbiters of matters constitutional. Neither the legislature nor the executive should punt constitutional questions to the courts.
I find your statement that “at the end of the process, we’ll have a much better idea of what’s constitutional and what isn’t” deeply disturbing. It indicates the all-too-common view that the courts are the only possible source of constitutional wisdom and that the courts are always correct in their interpretations of that document.
That view essentially gives the Supreme Court the secular equivelant of papal infallibility: that the high court is never wrong when speaking on constitutional matters. Nothing could be more damaging to a nation dedicated to the principle of self-governance.
I agree with ** Dewey Cheatem Undhow** that Bush ought not sign the bill for the reasons s/he gives. However, I hope things work out as ** minty green ** predicts;
I see a slippery slope problem. Amendment I says, “Congress shall make no law…abridging the freedom of speech,” but over time we have added the words, “…except for…” Each new restriction sticks, and then paves the way for more restrictions. Note this interchange:
**Kelly M **notes that FOS is not absolute, despite the words in the Constitution. But, then, where do we draw the line? There’s no guidance in the Constitution, because it doesn’t mention any exceptions.
One might say we draw the line wherever 5 Supreme Court judges feel like it. Or, we draw the line with only a bit more restrictions than formerly. That protects of agaist losing our FOS all at once.
IIRC the Buckley v. Valleo decision permitted an exception to FOS because it was urgently necessary to preserve fair elections. The current CFR bill proves that the last one didn’t work, which undermines the logic underlying Buckley v. Valleo. In my ideal world, not only would SCOTUS not permit the current law, they would undo their approval of free speech limitations in the prior CFR law. But, in the real world, that won’t happen. Once each bit of free speech is taken away, it will never be given back. 
Yeah, that Enron thing is no big deal. They just gave all that money to the GOP because they’re such nice guys. And who cares that George W. Bush was using Kenny Lay’s private jet during his 2000 campaign, anyway?
rjung, the Enron debacle can be used to argue for many things (reforms in the accounting profession, executive and director liability, etc, etc) but CFR isn’t one of them.
It bears repeating, yet again: Enron sought out assistance from the White House when it was failing, and it didn’t get it. Indeed, if I was Ken Lay I’d be pretty pissed that my campaign contributions couldn’t buy a little government help.
Yes, Enron – like many other companies that lead their fields – had input on various government policies. But none of those polices had any impact on Enron’s failure. Enron’s failure was wholly attributable to Enron’s entry into wildly unprofitable new lines of business and their subsequent efforts to conceal losses from those ventures from the investing public.
Well, it did buy Ken Lay the right to cherry-pick members of Bush’s energy department. And Lay was also very active in drafting the Bush/Cheney energy policy. And he got the Bush administration to sit back and do nothing while Enron reaped lotsa money from the California energy crisis.
Sounds to me like Ken Lay got a lot for his campaign contributions…
None of which has anything whatsoever to do with Enron’s collapse.
Enron backed a candidate whose views were closely aligned with their own – for the most part. Enron, for example, supported the Kyoto Protocol because it would have allowed swapping of pollution credits; they hoped to make a market for such trading in such credits the same way they did for trading energy futures. So if the Bush White House was in Enron’s pocket, why was Bush so hostile to Kyoto?
What your accusations principally amount to are thus: Enron played an important role in crafting a (yet-unimplemented) energy policy, and also made a lot of money on the spot market for energy because California foolishly denied power providers from entering into long-term contracts. Well, so what? An industry leader plays a role in crafting the rules that affect that industry – why is that unusual, or even a bad thing? And why is selling energy contracts at the spot market price a bad thing?
Why do you pick Enron, instead of any other corporation that sees to have a hand in crafting the rules under which they are governed? The only reason I can see is because Enron collapsed. But their role in crafting policy is unrelated to that collapse. The only reason to single out Enron by name, then, is to try to tar the Bush administration with what is essentially a business failure. That’s dirty pool.
Dewey, you’re awfully transparent in arguing only the narrow points you think you can spin in favor of your preselected conclusion, just like a lawyer arguing a brief would. Most of us here are big-picture types, though, with an interest in facts first and conclusions later.
The “so what” involves the entirety of the advisory committee’s composition, and therefore their ability to bend it their own particular benefit. Only Big Oil was represented meaningfully. Note very carefully Cheney’s willingness to go to court to quash subpoenas on the subject, too, and the complete lack of public or even congressional input into the process. “Why is that unusual, or even a bad thing?” you ask? That’s sad, my friend, sad indeed.
Comparison’s to the early Clinton administration’s efforts to even come up with health care reform legislation, a far cry from enacting it, and to the howling from GOP partisans are an exercise for the reader. If you’d like to take a shot, let’s see it.
See also: Whitewater. Payback’s a bee-atch, ain’t it?
In the interests of not hjacking this thread any further than need be, I’ll keep this short: [ul][li]Cheney has a legitimate argument about keeping conversations private in order to ensure honest advice from consulted experts.[/li]
[li]While I think Cheney’s argument is sound on balance, I do think that some details should be made public, and suspect that will happen as a result of the litigation.[/li]
[li]Why is it “sad” to point out that in coming up with policy governing a given industry, it makes sense to listen to leaders in that industry? It would be irresponsible of them not to do so.[/li]
[li]You’ve hardly made the case that Bush kowtowed to his campaign contributors. His policies have been what he proffered all along; that conincides with what his supporters want more often than not (that’s why they supported him), but you really haven’t shown that he’s done anything he wouldn’t otherwise have done but for campaign contributions. Indeed, on Kyoto he went in the opposite direction of what Enron would have preferred.[/ul] [/li][quote]
**See also: Whitewater. Payback’s a bee-atch, ain’t it? **
[/QUOTE]
[ul][li]First of all, the Enron collapse, unlike Whitewater, entailed no personal benefit to Bush or a member of the Bush administration or Bush family. It isn’t like Bush was shorting Enron as the stock went south. Indeed, press reports indicate that Bush’s mother-in-law actually lost money in the collapse.[/li]
Even if I cede for the sake of argument that Whitewater was an inappropriate thing to investigate – “Payback’s a bee-atch”? What is that, the “two wrongs make a right” defense? :rolleyes: [/ul]
No he doesn’t. Private conversation doesn’t facilitate honesty, only corruption. We aren’t talking about people sharing their feelings here, corporations don’t have any national secrets that Cheney doesn’t already have. This is about people outside of the government trying to influence policy. An honest advocate of a particular position will be willing to advocate in public.
Once again, No, his argument is not sound. If we were talking about Cheney talking to his subordinates, that would be something else again. He should be allowed to keep internal delberations private. But NOT conversations with lobbiests or corporate leaders.
That isn’t what he said. He said it is irresponsible to listen only to one side. It’s especially sleazy to listen only to campaign contributors and shut everyone else out. Arguing with strawmen is easy, try addressing his real arguments next time.
And that his father profited by more than 10 times what she lost. Funny how Bush didn’t mention that part.
But this another strawman. No-one has been saying that Bush is responsible for the failure of Enron or that he profited from insider information. Even the fact that his father made a profit on Enron stock doesn’t really signify much.
What is being said is quite a bit more nuanced than that.
It is becomming clear that the Enron leadership was deeply corrupt, AND that they had a great deal of access to and influence over Cheney’s energy policy, Furthermore, we know that Cheney didn’t get a balance of views. Since he based his energy policy on private conversations with corrupt individuals, then his policy is likely to have been corrupted.
There is also the question of whether or not the supposedly comptent Bush administration knew that they were friends with con men and approved, or if they were taken in. Either way, it reflects poorly on either their comptence or their honesty.
I personally think this is a reflection of their honestly, and if we had access to all of the facts, we would find that Bush & Cheney knowingly accepted contributions with the full intent of giving favors in return.
And that they operated at all times within the letter of the law. Quid pro Quo is damned hard to prove when deals are done on wink and a handshake rather than on paper. But regardless of what you may think of Bush & Cheney’s honesty. There can’t possibly be any question that Enron Thought that giving them money was a good investment.
And, by the way. Did you know that it’s illegal for corporations to contribute to campaigns?
Tejota’s answer was better than mine would have been. Thanks.
The “payback” remark, since you ask, was shorthand for the never-ending process of pointing out hypocrisy among those who, like yourself apparently, are stuck in the mire of partisan-only views of politics. More specifically, the more-partisan wing of the GOP made it clear during the Clinton administration what standards of conduct they think are acceptable towards an administration, while piously using words like “principle” and “dignity” and “honor”. So be it. Those then are the standards they themselves have set. If they get any better treatment in return (and they are, by orders of magnitude), that’s reason for relief and gratitude, not whining.
Now, if you can say why Whitewater wasn’t “tarring the Clinton administration with what is essentially a business failure” (your words) was not, very symmetrically, “dirty pool” (again your words), please explain. Many of us can only shake our heads sadly at the blindness of hypocrites, no matter how closely identical the situations may be.
Dewey, this forum generally doesn’t operate on the adversarial system you’re clearly used to, and which I fear may be the only system you know. We’re all trying to help each other understand the world better. If you leave a point unaddressed, it stands as stated, ya know? Yes, you and your “debate” techniques are transparent, as stated. I’d really hate to have to lump you in with such thoughtful, rational, curious, open-minded intellectual luminaries as december and Sam Stone, but that’s where you’re headed, pal.
OK, enough of the Enron hijack. I’ve started a new thread to continue that discussion for anyone who’s interested.
A few words for ElvisL1ves, though. You wrote the following:
Let’s clear a few items up here. First, I am a lawyer – a transactional lawyer. The first and last time I’ll see the inside of a courtroom in my career was the day I was sworn in to the bar. While negotiating a deal is technically “adversarial” in that there are two or more sides with sometimes-conflicting interests, it isn’t the same as litigating. My job, in part, is to find solutions to problems that avoid conflicts down the road.
So your attempt at psychoanalysis, while cute, is woefully inadequate.
I categorically reject the notion that I am mired in anything resembling a “partisan-only views of politics.” I am a conservative, that is true. And while conservatism correlates with the Republican party, one is not the other. I am critical of Republicans when they favor policies I think are dumb. For example, I think the worst day of the Bush presidency was the day he decided to be pro-steel tariffs.
And frankly, I stand behind my record. Search the SDMB for my posts (unfortunately, lots of 'em are presumably lost thanks to the hacker attack). You’ll find that while people often disagree with me, I’m no partisan hack.
Finally, kindly look at the name of the forum you are in. It’s called “Great Debates.” Without an opposing view, there is no debate. If you don’t want adversarial posts, stick to GQ, IMHO and MPSIMS.
If you want to take this further, I’ll happily meet you in the Pit.
Now that that’s out of the way, and in the interests of returning to the OP, I present for your review and discussion this National Review article by Ramesh Ponnuru on the role of the executive and legislative branches in constitutional interpretation, specifically with regard to CFR. Enjoy!
…but we’re not talking about the collapse of Enron (well, you are, but this topic isn’t). We’re talking about campaign finance reform, or “how to stop big businesses from buying government control”. And as I demonstrated earlier, Enron got lots of influence for their donations to the Bush campaign.
Please stick to the subject at hand, counselor.
As I’ve asked, repeatedly, what is the point of singling out Enron by name if not to tar the Bush administration with their colapse?
Certainly other large corporations have given contributions to Bush (as they did with Clinton). Certainly other large corporations have sought to influence policy (as they did with Clinton).
So why the special focus on Enron?