Clicking on banner ads enables JWR to constantly improve
Jewish World Review March 21, 2001 / 26 Adar 5761

Philip Terzian

JWR's Pundits
World Editorial
Cartoon Showcase

Mallard Fillmore

Michael Barone
Mona Charen
Linda Chavez
Ann Coulter
Greg Crosby
Larry Elder
Don Feder
Suzanne Fields
James Glassman
Paul Greenberg
Bob Greene
Betsy Hart
Nat Hentoff
David Horowitz
Marianne Jennings
Michael Kelly
Mort Kondracke
Ch. Krauthammer
Lawrence Kudlow
Dr. Laura
John Leo
David Limbaugh
Michelle Malkin
Jackie Mason
Michael Medved
Kathleen Parker
Wes Pruden
Sam Schulman
Amity Shlaes
Roger Simon
Tony Snow
Thomas Sowell
Cal Thomas
Jonathan S. Tobin
Ben Wattenberg
George Will
Bruce Williams
Walter Williams
Mort Zuckerman

Consumer Reports

John McCain and the cost of "reform" -- SEN. Roscoe Conkling, the great 19th-century New York boss, was once described by a political rival as traversing Capitol Hill with a "turkey-gobbler strut."

Watching Sen. John McCain of Arizona these days, you can't help thinking of Roscoe Conkling. Senator McCain is much admired for his ordeal as a prisoner of war in North Vietnam, and with reason. McCain, who was a cutup at the Naval Academy, and self-described hell-raiser as a young officer, was a heroic figure to his suffering fellow prisoners, and as senator and presidential candidate, has been largely immune to criticism. The Washington press corps prides itself on its resistance to political charm, but John McCain has hypnotized scores of columnists and reporters. It's not hard to see why: His candor and naturally rebellious nature appeal to baby boomers.

But at age 65, Senator McCain has grown a little old for the part. He still likes to kick the shins of his elders, and flash a naughty smile when admonished. No doubt, when he looks at Trent Lott of Mississippi, the Senate majority leader, or Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the Senate's most resolute opponent of campaign finance "reform," he sees those crusty old admirals at Annapolis, and it's 1957 again.

Having been soundly defeated by George W. Bush in the race for the Republican presidential nomination, Senator McCain returned to Washington the winner in the hearts of the media. His primary issue, campaign finance, remains low on the public's list of concerns; but the press shares his view that money is the root of political evil. When the Democrats reduced the Republican majority in the Senate to the vote of Vice President Cheney, he demanded and obtained from Senator Lott a pledge to allow debat on his campaign finance legislation, and a vote. We are now in the middle of the debate.

Senator McCain is one of those politicians who tend to personalize issues: Anyone who disagrees with him is not just wrong, but corrupt, and offensive to the senator. This odor of sanctity has been enhanced by the fact that his fellow enthusiasts for campaign finance "reform" in the Senate were almost exclusively Democrats who, when a minority, could vote freely for the McCain-Feingold bill. But that has now changed. The votes to enact McCain-Feingold exist, in theory; but better yet, the Democrats have awakened to the reality of eliminating soft money, cash raised by nonpartisan organizations to finance issue ads and campaigns. Democrats now acquire very nearly as much soft money as Republicans, and if McCain-Feingold were enacted, they would be at a distinct financial disadvantage, dashing any hopes of recapturing the House and Senate in 2002. As a consequence, Senator McCain's Democratic friends are falling away from the faith, and the fate of his bill is now far from certain.

This is, on the whole, a happy development. The press is persuaded that fund-raising, and the cost of campaigns, has crippled our democracy. But there is no evidence that this is true or, for that matter, that democracy is crippled. There is no particular correlation between the expenditure of cash and success on Capitol Hill, and many laws are passed in defiance of well-financed interests. Moreover, while the cost of modern campaigns is impressive, it is useful to put such figures in perspective. As Federal Election Commissioner Bradley Smith points out, in 1998 general election candidates spent $740 million over a two-year period -- roughly four dollars per eligible voter. Remember Michael Huffington, the California Senate candidate who, in 1994, horrified the press by spending $20 million of his own money, and lost?

As Kenneth Smith writes in The Washington Times, in that same year a little more than $100 million was spent to nderwrite advertising for reruns of "Seinfeld."

The McCain-Feingold bill would not just ban soft money. It would effectively interfere with the right of Americans, individually or organized, to participate in the political process, and give the federal government the power to supersede state election laws, and decide who can do what, when and how. It would criminalize the exercise of free speech on political issues, and regulate public opinion and debate. This is not just an assault on the First Amendment; it is, at heart, an incumbent protection measure. Senator McCain's strongest support among his colleagues has been based on their fury that people might actually criticize their actions, or organize opposition to their policies or, at worst, challenge them in campaigns.

Of course, that is called democracy. What Senators McCain and Russ Feingold want is not reform of campaign finance, but the power of the federal government to protect them from people who draft petitions, raise money, stuff envelopes -- and remind them that even senators who walk with a turkey-gobbler strut must answer to the people who elect them to office.

JWR contributor Philip Terzian is associate editor of The Providence Journal. Comment by clicking here.


03/19/01: Scoring the SAT
03/15/01: Who needs the Cuban embargo?
03/06/01: Take it easy, Mr. C
02/28/01: The Clintoons: Is history repeating itself?
02/26/01: Tax cut? How bourgeois
02/21/01: "Something must be done"
02/15/01: Under new management
02/12/01: Pickett's second charge
02/08/01: The wrong man
02/05/01: Their brother's keeper
01/25/01: The quantity of mercy
01/22/01: Run, Jesse, run
01/18/01: Clinton knows history's verdict
01/16/01: Take this job and ...
01/09/01: Washed in the blood
01/04/01: Up for the count
12/26/00: Remembering Comet Lindsay
12/20/00: Cooling down
12/18/00: Presidential legacies are not so obvious to contemporaries
12/13/00: Cops and soccer moms
12/11/00: The 'Net horrifies Stephen King
12/04/00: Downey behind bars
11/29/00: By any means necessary
11/16/00: Government sanctioned historical revisionism?
11/10/00: Breaking news: They don't know
11/09/00: Steve Allen: Smart TV
11/07/00: The November surprise
11/01/00: Take the Lieberman test
10/30/00: P.S. Don't tell Congress!
10/25/00: The election is close, but ...
10/23/00: King or jester?
10/19/00: The Million T-Shirt March
10/16/00: I like (fill in the blank)
10/12/00: Now comes the hard part
10/05/00: Good show, bad sports
10/02/00: It's a wonderful life?
09/28/00: Driving on America's Main Street
09/22/00: Preparing for a new administration
09/20/00: They've got a secret
09/18/00: Today, Dr. Laura. Tomorrow ...
09/12/00: What passes for knowledge
09/05/00: The catcher gets caught
08/31/00: A Golden Age that never was
08/28/00: Blame communism, not Russia
08/24/00: Social progress on one front, regression on the other
08/21/00: The beat goes awry
08/17/00: The unwelcome democrat

© 2001, The Providence Journal