JOHN FUND'S POLITICAL DIARY
Another Watergate?
Enron's no political scandal, but it may spur bad reforms anyway.
Thursday, January 24, 2002 12:01 a.m. EST
There is only one clear set of gainers from the collapse of Enron, the energy giant. It's those good-government types who are constantly pushing campaign finance reform as a cure-all for whatever ails our politics. Watch for campaign finance to dominate the debate in the House in coming weeks.
Enron's collapse is a major business story. As a political story it will no doubt bring further embarrassment as the Texas company's extensive political connections come to light. But Enron is no Teapot Dome, because there's no evidence that the company got much more than a hearing for all the political dough it delivered. When Ken Lay, Enron's CEO, called two Bush cabinet secretaries asking for help, they refused to intervene.
But that doesn't mean McCain-Feingold won't use Enron won't as a battering ram to pass the misguided bill, which would curb political speech by restricting campaign contributions.
McCain-Feingold passed the Senate last year, but its companion measure in the House (sponsored by Reps. Chris Shays, a Connecticut Republican, and Marty Meehan, a Massachusetts Democrat) has been languishing in the House for lack of a majority (218 members) to force a floor vote. The petition now has 214 signatures, with another member promising he would be the 218th. Expect a full-court press now to get the final signatures.
Advocates will claim that further limits on money in politics will somehow prevent future Enrons. Nonsense. "I think it's a lot of hoopla but not a whole lot of evidence," in the words of Rep. Albert Wynn, a Maryland Democrat who is chief sponsor of an alternative bill that would do much less damage to the First Amendment. "I see no evidence of favors or special attention that was given to Enron by political figures that would suggest campaign contribution favors of any kind," he told the Washington Times.
Should campaign-finance reform reach the House floor, many members will be loathe to vote against it for fear of being accused of being lackeys for corporate money. A total of 71 senators and 186 House members--just under half of Congress--accepted some money from Enron, making each of them a potential target. President Bush's advisers have already indicated he might sign whatever campaign finance bill reaches his desk, and with Enron's fall it would take real spunk to veto a "cleanup" of unregulated soft money of the kind Enron spread around.
If McCain-Feingold becomes law, its backers in the media and the good-government think tanks will congratulate themselves and hail the move as a step to better government. In reality, it will move us closer to incumbent government. Incumbents already win well over 95% of races for Congress and the bipartisan gerrymanders now being drawn in the states will make certain that number only goes up. "The problem with campaign finance reform is that only incumbents write the laws," said the late Rep. Ned Pattison, a New York Democrat. "You can be sure the fine print put in at midnight will make certain that those who vote for it will be there in two years."
Indeed, the only amendments to McCain-Feingold that passed the Senate last year would help protect--surprise!--incumbents from wealthy challengers and force TV stations to sell them cheap ad rates. Proposals to require unions and corporations to seek permission from members or shareholders for political donations lost. According to Sen. John McCain, making sure people aren't forced to give money to politicians isn't "what campaign finance reform is really all about."
What's the alternative? Recognize that money in politics is like water in a river. You can divert its flow, but it's very hard to dry it up. In a federal government with this much power to dispense favors or mete out punishments, someone will always find a channel so funds can flow from a giver to a recipient. A better response would be to insist on full disclosure--daily, publicly, electronically--of contributions from whatever source, whatever they be. That would let voters decide for themselves which flawed politician they wanted in office and give challengers a fighting chance to raise enough money to be heard. Under current campaign-finance laws the insurgent antiwar efforts of both Eugene McCarthy in 1968 and George McGovern in 1972 would have been well nigh impossible.
The debate over McCain-Feingold has become a battle to bring about incumbent government rather than good government. In all the agitation over Enron, people are averting their gaze from that reality in their desire to see something, anything called campaign finance reform pass Congress this year.
The last spasm of reform came in 1974 after Watergate. That resulted in the current system everyone rails against. The reforms we may see enacted after the Enron debacle are likely to be just as unpopular as the current system within a few years. Then the talk about the need for the next "reform" will begin.
opinionjournal.com |
