Loyal Opposition

David Corn's
Loyal Opposition

Wednesday, November 17, 1999

It's Money That Matters

Not too long ago, the family headed to a paint store to gather supplies. As soon as I wheeled the little one into the shop, we were met by fumes. Fearing the bearer of my DNA would suffer untold harm should she inhale any of these chemicals, I rushed her out of the establishment. The missus continued on with the mission. When she reached the counter, she asked the sales clerk how he could withstand this airborne assault on a daily basis. "Smell, what smell?" he replied. "Guess I don't smell it any more."

A similar acclimation -- call it a benumbing -- has occurred throughout Washington. In recent weeks, there has been an avalanche of evidence showing that the nation's capital reeks of institutional corruption. Granted, that's no news flash. Almost daily, the campus paper, the Washington Post, exposes a money-and-politics outrage. Yet there is little anger, and, consequently, little change. Last month, the Republicans in the Senate, using parliamentary procedures, blocked a majority of Senators from passing the most lightweight of reform measures, a bill advanced by Senators John McCain and Russ Feingold to abolish soft money -- the mega-contributions from corporations, unions, and millionaires that both parties use without shame to circumvent restraints on political fundraising.

Even had this legislation passed, it would not redress most of the ills. High-priced K-Street lobbying that skews the legislative process, pay-to-play campaign contributions, pork barrel projects that rob taxpayers of their hard-earned dollars -- all this is routine. Sadly, its exposure causes little discomfort for the culprits. In explaining why business interests this year are giving equally to the House Democratic and Republican campaign arms (after they had dramatically favored the GOP in recent years), Representative Patrick Kennedy, who heads the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, told the Post that the business donors, realizing the Democrats may win back the House, are hedging their bets: "Major corporate donors want to be able to enjoy the same access as they do with the current majority.... For them, it's a business proposition." In other words, they are buying access -- and the Democrats and Republicans are eagerly selling it. Should members of Congress decide with whom they will discuss legislative matters based on campaign contributions? That does not seem the most effective way to maximize the public interest. Yet Kennedy is not bashful in acknowledging this blatant access-peddling.

In another ho-hum-producing story, the Post noted Kennedy and the House Democrats had assiduously courted Steve Wynn, the Las Vegas gambling king, who was pissed at the Republicans because they had not smothered an anti-gambling initiative in Congress. After four years of sweet talking -- Representative Charles Rangel was the main Romeo for the Democrats -- Wynn offered to donate $1 million to $1.5 million in soft money to the Democrats' project to regain the House. How do you think that might affect Democratic leader Dick Gephardt's view on casino-related legislation? Wynn, of course, is out to get something for those bucks -- and it's not good-government in which legislators evaluate matters purely on the merits.

But Kennedy and his band are pikers in money-grubbing when compared to Representative Tom DeLay, the Republican majority whip. DeLay has been busy pioneering new ways of drawing dino-dollars into politics. He has been soliciting donations in the $100,000 range for a new organization that will run ads and phone banks to benefit specific Republican candidates. By doing so, DeLay is undermining the intent of campaign finance law that limits donations to candidates to $1000 and compels candidates to make public the names of the high-rollers who support them. He is, in effect, setting up a middleman operation that will not have to reveal the names of its donors. Thus, he will be rounding up anonymous backers who will hold secret IOUs from the GOP. It's a throwback to the old days of politics, when behind-the-scenes money-men provided cash in envelopes to their favorite pols in return for A-1 service. Democrats claim DeLay's project is not legal, but their protests have not slowed him.

DeLay has enlisted a bevy of corporate lobbyists as key members of his money machine. This is how he operates, according to a profile in the Post: "The eight-term Houston congressman offers key Washington powerbrokes a straightforward deal: a seat at the table to plot legislative and political strategy in exchange for help in passing the Republicans' agenda and financial support for GOP candidates." Could there be a more honest description of influence-selling? DeLay's kitchen cabinet includes lobbyists for the US Chamber of Commerce, the real estate industry, BellSouth, Microsoft, the insurance industry, UPS, and other corporate interests. And he is blunt -- blunter than Patrick Kennedy -- about his MO: "It's in [the lobbyists'] interest to keep a Republican majority, and it's a way to keep a Republican majority and get our job done. It's sort of 'Scratch my back, I'll scratch yours.'"

Excuse the self-righteousness, but who is scratching for the public?

Special interest lobbying appears to be dominating Congress more than ever before. And it's not just because DeLay is letting corporate lobbyists set the agenda of the House. Sallie Mae, the Washington-based provider of student loans, hired three former members of Congress as lobbyists, spent $1.1 million on lobbying in the first half of this year, and -- Shazam! -- was able to get a multi-million-dollar break quietly slipped into unrelated legislation. The measure would change how student loan rates are calculated and could mean an additional $692 million in profits for Sallie Mae. (That's not a bad return on the investment in lobbying.) Schering-Plough, the drug firm, has been lobbying Congress to extend its patent protection on Claritin. A dose of the antihistamine costs up to $2.66; generic drug manufacturers say they can make a version for 50 cents. Clearly, users of the drug would not gain from such legislation. So why consider it? That question did not stop Schering-Plough. It doubled its lobbying effort to $4 million a year and deployed lobbyist Peter Knight, a Gore crony, and Linda Daschle, the wife of the Senate minority leader. The company also has dished out hundreds of thousands of dollars in contributions to Democrats and Republicans. If this campaign succeeds, Representative Henry Waxman remarked, it "would send a simple message that if you spend enough money and hire the right lobbyists you can get a law that harms consumers."

Money is everywhere in the political system. Organizers for Bill Clinton's presidential library have collected $20 million in pledges. From whom? They won't say. This money-shaking is being overseen by Terry McAuliffe, the ubiquitous Democratic fundraiser who is also raising money for Hillary Rodham Clinton and advising Vice President Al Gore. (He was the Clinton buddy who offered to back the mortgage of their new house in Westchester, before the Clintons snagged a better deal that required no guarantor.) Here we have the President receiving generous gifts from individuals who might have business with the government. The Post reported that San Francisco developer Walter Shorenstein has pledged $1 million, supermarket tycoon Ron Burkle may kick in up to $10 million and Fox Family Worldwide chairman Haim Saban has promised to write a check for millions. There's nothing illegal in this. Ronald Reagan did the same when he was in office. But how can the public be confident that special treatment is not being extended to those who have promised to help Clinton build his library? The other Clinton has also displayed little concern for appearances. The Democratic Party of New York State is running ads for Hillary Clinton, the undeclared Senate candidate, using the same soft-money loophole her husband obscenely exploited during the 1996 campaign. It's all in the family.

When Elizabeth Dole pulled out of the presidential race, she groused, "The bottom line is money." Overwhelmed by the $50 million or so George W. Bush had raised, Dole was more accurate than perhaps she intended to be. The political system -- including the legislative process -- is awash in big-money. The stink, though, has become so constant, it is hardly noticed.

Bucks Before Brains?

The most entertaining aspect of the pop-quiz to-do was the reaction from George W. Bush and the his merry band to the news he could not name three B-list foreign leaders. Bush's spokeswoman Karen Hughes, maintaining the test was unimportant, noted that Bush's top foreign policy advisers could not identify the heads of state in Chechnya, Taiwan, Pakistan and India. How comforting, for those worried about Bush's own inexperience in foreign policy matters. He can't even hire people who can get him India's prime minister on the phone without first having to look up the name. Then Bush, taking a spit-in-the-wind stand, kept asserting he was -- he really was -- ready to be a global leader. In an interview with Sam Donaldson, he said, "What I wish he would have asked me... is what do I think the United States' role is in the world. This country has got a choice to make, Sam. Whether we become isolationists, whether we retreat within our borders or whether we promote peace. As president, I intend to promote peace."

What does that mean? The choice is isolationism or promoting peace? What is Bush talking about? It's as if he was reading flash cards. What candidate doesn't believe he or she is promoting peace? A few days later, while campaigning in Florida, Bush said, "I haven't memorized every leader's name yet, but I know how to lead the world in peace." How's that? What's his experience in leading "the world in peace"? Obviously, Bush has learned one thing about foreign policy: keep mentioning the word "peace." Days later, in South Carolina, Bush said he would be a better commander-in-chef than war-hero Senator John McCain because " I've had chief executive experience. I know how to set goals. I know how to make decisions. I know how to rally people." That's his best case? Any mid-level business executive who's read one of those how-to-succeed pop-advice books can set goals. As for Bush's executive experience, as I noted recently in this column, the Texas governorship is one of the weakest chief executive posts in national politics. The legislature meets every other year for a short time, and the state constitution awards limited power to the governor. Bush was deftly brushed back by a fastball from McCain spokesman Howard Opinsky: "While Senator McCain hasn't fired a baseball manager, we think he has some relevant experience to be the nation's commander in chief."

Forget asking Bush to name who is really in charge in Russia these days. It will be fun to see him try to keep up with McCain when they eventually debate -- especially when Bush is forced to think on his feet on topics of substance. Does Bush have the firepower upstairs to handle issues he now knows little about? If not, there is one fact he can trumpet: the amount of money in his campaign account.

Loyal Opposition appears weekly in The New York Press.

Click here to read more of David Corn's articles in American Politics Journal.