Campaign Reform's 'Armageddon'
" Mr. Hastert has been at the White House
trying to get President Bush to help kill reform, perhaps
by backing one of several "killer amendments" being
readied to make it look as though their sponsors are
trying to improve the bill when the real intent is to bury it."
……………………………………………………………………
"We rarely take this step, but today we urge supporters of
reform to call their representatives, starting Monday, and
make sure they are behind Shays-Meehan. The Capitol
number is 202-224-3121. Let the voices of Americans
speak louder than the sound of cash registers, once and
for all."
The New York Times
February 10, 2002
T his week campaign finance
reform finally comes before
the House for the most important
vote on cleaning up the nation's
scandalous and corrupt political fund-raising system in
more than 25 years. Opponents of the Shays-Meehan bill
are resorting to every legislative and political tactic to kill
reform. They are behaving as if campaign legislation will
end life as we now know it on earth.
In a way, they are right. The Shays-Meehan bill is not a
panacea, but it would end the vast unlimited donations by
corporations, unions and rich people to national parties,
and it would greatly restrict the spending of state parties.
These are the sums at the heart of recent scandals, from
the Clinton era right up to Enron today.
To imagine what life might be like with curbs on campaign
fund-raising, flip through a newspaper or listen to the
news. Environmental decisions, influenced by donations
from energy companies. Drug regulations, influenced by
money from the pharmaceutical industry. The patients'
bill of rights, where dueling donations from the insurance
lobby and rich trial lawyers will determine the outcome
more than voters' sentiments. And, of course, there is
Enron, whose donations have not only corrupted the
political system but poisoned the financial system's
credibility as well. In a very real sense, campaign money,
which led to lax regulations, has undermined the stock
market and confidence in financial reporting as much as
it has appalled average Americans.
There is something pathetic about the all-out effort by the
speaker of the House, Dennis Hastert, and his fund-raiser
in chief, Tom DeLay. The Republicans speak of the vote on
Shays-Meehan in apocalyptic terms. Some Republicans
use the word "Armageddon." Mr. DeLay asserts in private
that the Republicans could lose the House to the
Democrats in November if deprived of soft money, and he
will blame every wavering Republican if that happens.
Does Mr. DeLay truly believe that people vote for his party
only because it can collect more money for TV ads than
the opposition? Surely its ideas and programs must count
for something.
The Shays-Meehan bill was passed easily in the House,
but that was when representatives were sure it would die
in the Senate. Some Democrats and Republicans are in
danger of defecting now that the bill actually has a chance
of being enacted. Unions want to convince Democrats that
campaign reform hurts their interests. Some
Congressional Black Caucus members have bought into
that logic, creating a situation in which both parties
believe that they cannot win without soft money.
Meanwhile, Mr. Hastert has been at the White House
trying to get President Bush to help kill reform, perhaps
by backing one of several "killer amendments" being
readied to make it look as though their sponsors are
trying to improve the bill when the real intent is to bury
it.
The amendments could come in various sizes or shapes,
in some cases written to wreck careful compromises that
have broadened support for the bill. Campaign reform foes
will try to tack on anti- union measures to drive
Democrats away. They will try to put in a clause declaring
the whole measure invalid if any one small piece is
declared unconstitutional. They will offer an alternative
sponsored by Representative Bob Ney of Ohio, saying that
it offers more limited reforms, even though it really just
preserves the status quo.
Shockingly, many Republicans and Democrats are already
suggesting that they cannot vote for Shays-Meehan this
week because it is too weak. They think their constituents
could be fooled that a bill shutting down $750 million in
fund-raising, including all of the kind of fund-raising
linked to Enron in recent years, is too small a step to take.
In this region, key votes need to come from
Representatives Sue Kelly, Benjamin Gilman, James
Walsh, John McHugh and Jack Quinn from New York. In
New Jersey, Rodney Frelinghuysen, Frank LoBiondo and
Jim Saxton. Every one of these lawmakers voted for
Shays-Meehan in 1998 and 1999. A reversal now would
betray the promises they have made and until now lived
up to. Two freshmen, Representative Felix Grucci of New
York and Mike Ferguson of New Jersey, should think long
and hard about this issue.
We rarely take this step, but today we urge supporters of
reform to call their representatives, starting Monday, and
make sure they are behind Shays-Meehan. The Capitol
number is 202-224-3121. Let the voices of Americans
speak louder than the sound of cash registers, once and
for all.
nytimes.com February 10, 2002 |
