|
Jewish World Review March 21, 2001 / 26 Adar 5761
Philip Terzian
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
03/19/01: Scoring the SAT
|