E-Mail Us! E-Mail Us!
Reno, Gore, Polls and More
Janet Reno - will American's faith in her allow a no go for an independent counsel?
Campaign Finance Heats Up
Tuesday, September 30th 1997: Cokie Roberts, Sam Donaldson and a raft of other talking heads-sans-brains look typically dumb, dumb, dumb as their constant prattle about Americans paying no attention to campaign finance abuse prove wrong. George Will, a talking head with a brain seems beside himself with intellectual glee as he mutters platitude after platitude -- ignoring the obvious -- Americans are lost. They just don't get it. But it appears that television pundits have had at least some effect on voters. They've confused the heck out of them. -- At least according to the new CNN-Gallup Poll which says the majority of us want campaign-finance legislation passed this year. Fifty-five to 35 percent said we want it. Forty-seven percent had more confidence in the GOP to handle it.
Now, I ask you. How stupid can we be? We want "reform", but we think Republicans can handle it better? Well, how's that possible. Republicans seem quite happy to leave things as they are. As a matter of fact they're leading the charge to stop passage of the much-touted, much amended, McCain-Feingold Bill in the Senate this week, threatening to filibuster it to death.
That's fine with me. I think any bill restricting my right to buy a billion dollars worth of pro-Gore messages is downright unconstitutional. I agree with Senators Mitch McConnell and Bob Bennett. Don't touch my first amendment.
But the poll goes on to show just how schizophrenic Americans are -- To my mind, as a result of listening to Cokie et al.
In the latest Gallup Poll, respondents were asked if the two parties were genuinely committed to reform. Thirty-seven percent felt Clinton is genuinely committed, while 53 percent said he isn't. Meanwhile, thirty-four percent said Republicans are genuinely committed to the issue while 53 percent said they aren't.
Okay. So the majority of us want reform. We think the GOP can handle it better, but we don't think Republicans are committed to the issue?
Americans want campaign finance reform this year - Source: Gallup Polls
Clear thinking?
Nope.
One thing's for sure, the GOP has better spin doctors than the Democrats. The latest poll shows 46 percent saying Bill Clinton broke fund-raising laws, while 36 percent said he didn't. EIghteen percent -- the smart ones -- weren't sure. Al Gore had similar numbers.
The public, always hungry for a scandal, continues to want an independent counsel -- 73-21 percent. But Janet Reno herself has maintained the public confidence with 53% of us saying she was dedicating to finding the facts and only 34 % saying she isn't. That gives her the latitude to decide not to appoint one.
Voters think the GOP can do a better job than Clinton on campaign reform - but they like Clinton better. Source: Gallup Polls
Meanwhile on Capitol Hill the "McTeam" of John McCain and Mitch McConnell -- two Republican leaders -- has exploded. The two senators used to practically live together, but are now pitted against each other in a battle to the death over McCain/Feingold and other laws that might restrict the ability of politicians to raise money. McCain wants to light your fire and drastically change the campaign system by banning "soft money" -- the kind you can give in unlimited amounts. McConnell is the staunchest Senate defender of the status quo. He wants unlimited money but also urges instant reporting requirements to keep us honest.
Senator Mitch McConnell (R - Kentucky) 
Senator John McCain (R - Arizona)
Some say McConnell is fearful that the only way he may keep his seat is by outspending his opponents. This is true in a lot of races, and, it is this notion that propels the fight between Republicans and Democrats. Despite anecdotal evidence that bigger money doesn't always make the winner -- for instance Huffington's losing senate race in California, or Forbes battle for President -- the truth is that the more you spend the more likely you are to win. Only when candidates carry some very heavy baggage can a challenger beat them with far less cash.
With Democrat registration still far outpacing Republican, the GOP has to be worried that new laws restricting their access to megabucks will cripple them and throw control of the congress back to Democrats.
They're right. And Democrats know it. That's why Democrats are lined up, shoulder to shoulder, in a desperate crunch to get rid of soft money. Although they'll suffer as well, it's clear the benefit swings to them under "no soft money" laws. It is this reason, and no other that makes the argument partisan. Frankly both parties would rather the whole issue sink under some new front page story, but short of Martians landing on the White House Lawn, politicians will have to deal with it, get it out of the way, and move on.
So, paying lipservice to the do-gooders, Democrats are fighting for position in a ball game they'd rather not be playing and Republicans are braving it out, relying on literal interpretations of the Constitution -- as usual.
As my friend Miguel says, the whole thing is "caca de toro."
Senator Russell Feingold (D - Wisconsin) - the "father" of campaign finance reform
But both sides are nervous about another element in the "ban soft money" cocktail -- The very reality that incumbency may no longer enjoy its lock on House and Senate seats. It's this fear that could render the entire debate moot. Both Democrats and Republicans know that the quickest way to cash is to be in the seat. Incumbents invariably have to spend a lot less on their re-election campaigns and spend a lot fewer hours raising money than do challengers. With soft money gone, challengers will have a more open playing field. Incumbents will still get the lion's share of "hard money" -- now limited to $2,000 per cycle. ($1,000 in the primary and $1,000 in the general election ). Hard money likes to bet on winners, and incumbents are winners by definition.
Both parties, whether or not the soft money ban passes, will get one thing from the debates -- a huge increase in the total amount of hard money donations acceptable by law. We've heard both sides argue that the $1,000 limit per election is antiquated. That limit -- passed in 1974 -- will be raised no doubt. And don't be surprised to see it move to $5,000. Both Democrats and Republicans have done the math. Extrapolating hard money donations now made at $1,000 would increase at least 400% and perhaps as much as 1,000% should the hard money ceiling be raised. That's enough to make up for soft money losses and more.
The last issue, and a sticky one, is the impact soft money bans would have on issue-advocacy groups. This is a real problem and truly hits at the heart of the Constitution. If you favor making Armadillos the national pet, you now have the right to spend $100 billion buying air time to push your point and to link it for or against a particular candidate or party, although you have to mince your words. Under Democrat proposals, you'd lose that right -- at least three to six months before a federal election.
I for one, don't like this one bit. If I want armadillos, than I have a right to spend my money to get them. If that takes out a few congressman --Well, so be it.
And what's the value of a New York TImes endorsement? Some might argue little, but the endorsement, if purchased might cost a few million dollars. Will we stop the Times from printing same? Stretching this further, you can take your own imaginary trip down "FEC-Court" lane to see what will happen, election after election, as one side challenges "expenditures" of the other.
It would be a nightmare.
Copyright© - UDR Inc