Cornered by Campaign Finance Reform
McCain Dishes Out His Comeuppance
By William Rivers Pitt

March 21, 2002 -- BOSTON (truthout.com) -- Republican Senator John McCain of Arizona wore a smile like the grille of a highballing Mack truck yesterday as he watched seven years of hard work finally come to fruition. The passage of the McCain-Feingold Campaign Finance Reform Bill secured him a place in Congressional history, fulfilled a promise he made during his 2000 Presidential campaign, and cemented his legacy as a reform-minded maverick with a taste for bucking his party leaders. Along the way, he may have even helped clean up an American political system in dire need of a heaping spoonful of Drano, but that remains to be seen.

The gleam of steel in McCain's smile yesterday was likely due to one other all-important factor. The passage of his reform bill presents an incredible dilemma for his erstwhile primary foe, George W. Bush. Bush, a man who has profited more from 'soft money' campaign contributions than any living human on Earth, does not want to sign this legislation into law. If he does not sign it, he will be actively betraying the wishes of a vast majority of the American people. If he does sign it, the hard right flank of his own party, those elephants who truly never forget, will raise howls of betrayed rage that will wake the dead.

It has been three years since the viciousness of the South Carolina primary, when Bush confederates publicly questioned McCain's patriotism, put forth the idea that McCain cared nothing about breast cancer, and made thousands of phone calls to South Carolina voters attacking the essence of his character. Before entering politics, John McCain was a fighter pilot schooled in the art of waiting for a hard target to appear in his sights. Yesterday, with the ache of those old South Carolina scars rumbling beneath his skin, he finally had George in the crosshairs.

The essence of McCain's legislation centers upon the avalanche of unregulated "soft money" campaign contributions that have been cascading into politics in recent years. Ostensibly, this money is meant to build political parties via registration and get-out-the-vote drives. In fact, the money is used to attack rival candidates and purchase influence. McCain-Feingold dams that flow. McCain's bill also puts limits on those anonymous 'issue ads' that viciously slander opponents using the same soft money. The bill raises to $2,000 the limit on "hard money" contributions that can be given directly to a campaign, increases contribution limits for those facing wealthy opponents, and tightens disclosure requirements.

It is a coin-toss as to which party benefits more from this legislation. The GOP has been historically more adept at raising hard money, and the raised ceiling on those contributions would seem to benefit them. An analysis in the March 21, 2002 Boston Globe, in fact, claims that Bush should happily sign the legislation into law because it will further free him from the common practice of accepting Federal matching campaign funds. These funds, established in the wake of Watergate, give Federal money to candidates who agree to campaign spending limits. Bush eschewed those limits and funds in 2000, with demonstrable success. Now that the hard money limit is $2,000, there is little reason for him to change his tactics.

The ace up the Democrats' sleeve is union support. If the Democratic Party can dragoon union loyalists into pouring hard money campaign contributions into the 2004 nominee's coffers, they may well be able to match Bush's fundraising prowess. Added to this is the rising star of wealthy Massachusetts Senator John Kerry, considered by many to be first in line for the 2004 nomination. Kerry's personal fortune, combined with union support, could free him from the spending limits Gore was forced to accept in 2000. This fact, more than his record of service in Vietnam and in Congress, may make Kerry the most important Democrat in America today.

All of this is theoretical. If Bush does sign the legislation into law, a blizzard of litigation will follow. Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky hopes to be first in line at the courthouse, carrying with him the claim that McCain-Feingold violates the free speech rights outlined in the First Amendment. The connection between campaign funding and free speech was codified within the Supreme Court decision "Buckley v. Valeo" of 1976, and it is on the shoulders of this case that McConnell and others intend to rest their claim.

The outcome of these challenges shall ride upon the court's interpretation of a line in the Buckley case. Political contributions are free speech, stated the Supreme Court, whose restriction can only be justified by overriding government interest. If supporters of McCain-Feingold can argue successfully that special interest control of government, represented vividly by the influence Enron had over the current administration, demands restrictions in the name of a cleaner democracy, the challenges offered by McConnell and others may well fail.

Bush faces a gambler's choice. He can sign it and hope the first legal challenge takes the teeth out of it. If the legislation passes the first courtroom hurdle, he can hope his conservative allies on the Supreme Court will render another decision favorable to his party and position when it arrives on their doorstep. Or he can veto it out of hand, suffer the inevitable firestorm of criticism, and wait for legislation that better suits him to come from Congress.

The cold dish of revenge McCain has served up for Bush with this legislation has little to do with the vagaries of financial advantage, or the survivability of the bill in court. Bush has spent years advocating reform from one side of his mouth while attacking McCain's bill from the other. His supporters on the far right fervently believe that any limitation on campaign spending is a direct assault on free speech, a view cash-fattened conservative bankrollers have been careful to cultivate over the years. If Bush puts ink to the bill, he will join his father in the "Read My Lips" roll call of disfavor.

The dunning has already begun. Conservative talk show host Rush Limbaugh claimed in a recent article that, "If the President does not veto this bill, and leaves the dirty work to the Supreme Court, he runs the risk of tarnishing his legacy, despite his outstanding leadership as commander-in-chief and war president." Sentiments of a more venomous mien bloom like crabgrass on conservative Internet forums where the faithful gather. On FreeRepublic.com, one poster summed up the anger felt by many when it was reported that Bush promised to sign the legislation into law next week:

"I regret working to get him elected, I regret voting for Bush, and I regret being my GOP precinct captain. Never again."

Public demand for campaign finance reform demands that Bush sign this bill. The specter of Enron and the widely accepted belief that he is owned by special interests demands that Bush sign this bill. The possibility of an embarrassing veto override by Congress demands that Bush sign this bill. The political cover found in the better-than-even chance that the courts will gut the legislation makes it easier for Bush to sign this bill.

Yet it will cost Bush dearly among those who make up the backbone of his support, among those who willingly savaged McCain's reputation in South Carolina so as to put Bush where he is today. The flowers are blooming in Arizona, and John McCain is smiling. The cold dish has been well served.