September 21, 1997

Continue Senate Hearings Until Voter Disgust Complete

The trouble with prospects for campaign finance reform is that Congress is soft on hard money. Or, is it hard on soft money?

No matter. It’s the same difference.

Hearings by the Senate Committee on Government Oversight last week heard conclusive testimony by White House administration witnesses that the Clinton-Gore re-election campaign was desperate for cash -- so much so, it solicited and/or accepted big bucks from many questionable sources, no questions asked.

The official Democrat defense had been:

• Republicans do it too.
• It was all soft money allowed by law.

These bleats now are seldom heard. Audiences laugh when Democrats allege that President Reagan accepted illegal donations a decade ago. People hoot when dismayed Dems assert there ain’t no one in this here soft-money hen house ‘cept us chickens.

Criticism has little effect on a politician. Ridicule, however, is curtains.

Asian hustlers, Buddhist nuns, Mideast deal makers and Democratic National Committee fund raisers have admitted under oath they ignored existing campaign finance laws in the last election.

It is clear that President Clinton personally approved illegal fund-raising schemes -- the least of which was renting out the Lincoln bedroom. Vice-president Gore, dutiful soldier in the campaign battle, dialed for dollars illegally 86 times from his White House office; and knew full-well that the Buddhist contributions were illegal.

Most damaging was disclosure by the Democratic National Committee witnesses that 20 percent of soft money contributions in the 1996 election were diverted routinely to hard money accounts.

It is pointed out to those readers who have been adrift in a lifeboat for the past month that money donated to candidate campaigns are “hard” and limited to a maximum of $1,000 per candidate. There is no limit on “soft” money to political parties for “issue information.”

Calls by Republicans for Attorney General Janet Reno to appoint an independent counsel to investigate Democrat campaign abuses had been shunted aside. She argued there was no evidence of excess hard money contributions. The DNC revelation swept away her excuse. Now she seeks refuge in delay. Reno will spend the next 30 days determining if there was a possible violation in the hard money restriction. If so, she will study the problem for the following 90 days to see if the violation is serious enough to warrant appointing outside counsel.

Generous contributors to Democrat causes -- via the soft money route -- are furious. In most cases they had already contributed the maximum hard money allowed to the Clinton-Gore ticket or other candidates.

The DNC’s announced split of contributions placed fat cats in jeopardy of the law. There was so splitting of hairs by them. Violation is obvious. Gore already has been wounded. Mr. Clean’s public approval rating plummeted from 54 per cent to 39 percent. House Democratic leader Dick Gephardt -- Gore’s recognized competitor for their party’s 2000 presidential nomination -- is smiling for the first time in five years.

Also cheered by these developments are Sens. John McCain (R-Ariz) and Russell Feingold (D-Wis.) They sponsored a bill in the last congress to ban soft money altogether -- inducing cardiac arrest among their colleagues. That was an election year, and soft money was incumbents’ guarantee of re-election. The bill failed by five votes in the senate and never got out of committee in the House.

McCain and Feingold have re-introduced their bill this year -- adding strong disclosure requirements, free television time, and strict scrutiny of “issue” ads to eliminate thin disguises of candidates identified strongly with particular issues.

The new bill suffered the kiss of death again when all 45 Democrat senators recently signed a letter to Majority Leader Trent Lott endorsing it. The sudden turn-about by Democrats was a cute ploy to embarrass their Republican tormentors. The bill would still be two votes shy of passage in the Senate. Lott says he wants to wait until the Government Oversight hearings are over by December 31. One suspects Lott likes the present pro-incumbent campaign regulations now that his party controls Congress for the first time in 45 years.

What ever. The present McCain-Feingold proposal is weak tea. It certainly should be revised extensively.

Hard money contributions to candidates -- with same-day disclosure on the internet -- should be unlimited in view of the Supreme court decision that campaign giving is a form of free speech. Gobs of money -- personal or contributed -- is the only way challengers can overcome incumbency advantages. Soft money from political action committees, likewise, can not be banned. Nonetheless it can be limited in amount. Also, copies or videos of proposed issue advertising can be reviewed by the Federal Election Commission before public release.

A suggestion that half or more of all contributions must come from a candidate’s home district might be useful for Congress and state legislatures, but this would have no effect on the nationwide presidential race -- the big enchilada.

The best solution would be a constitutional amendment limiting the terms of office for federal senators and representatives -- just as now pertains to presidents.

Term limits on state legislatures or municipal representatives are law in 22 states -- with good effect.

Efforts by states to impose term limits on their congressmen have been nullified by the U.S. Supreme court. Federal offices can be regulated only by the Constitution.

House Speaker Newt Gingrich included a term-limit constitutional amendment in his original “contract with America.” It was the only proposal voted down entirely by Congress -- albeit by a slim margin. He promised to try again but has been quiet on the subject so far in this session.

The hearing on campaign abuses should continue full bore until voters are thoroughly disgusted with the present fig leaf -- enough so to demand meaningful reform.

PARTING SHOTS

Always drink upstream from the herd.

* * *

Never underestimate the creativity of Congress. The House is wants a $3,072 raise in annual pay to $133,600 but is afraid to pass enabling legislation for fear of voter reaction. The lawmakers are avoiding controversy by calling the hike a “cost of living adjustment.”

* * *

Times are a-changing. Russian airmen flew over eastern United States last month photographing military installations. No one noticed or cared. It was part of a mutual open-skies agreement. Nowadays, the U.S. and Russia get better pictures by satellite.

By Lindsey Williams, columnist for Sun Coast Media Group newspapers