Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Zoltan! who wrote (10529)	2/1/2000 11:29:00 AM
From: Bill	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769667

The choice in November will be dignity (Bush) versus sleaze (Gore).

To: Zoltan! who wrote (10529)	2/1/2000 11:33:00 AM
From: DMaA	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769667

McPain's favorite special interest is Big Media. A piece by F. Lee Levin from November: Who's Corrupt? McCain Bill Aids Big Media Interest Wealthy “special interests” are providing favors to a U.S. senator to influence the passage of legislation. The legislation is designed to cut off competition in the marketplace and to protect a monopoly. In return for the legislation, the special interests are providing the senator with millions of dollars of in-kind benefits - a classic case of quid pro quo influence peddling. This is the kind of conduct that Sen. John McCain is condemning in his campaign for president. Yet, it is Mr. McCain of whom we speak. The principal sellers of information about politics are the national media, such as The New York Times and The Washington Post. That's fine. It's their business, and these companies make a nice profit from the sale of political news and commentary. Their only serious competition comes from the political campaigns themselves, the political parties, and citizen advocacy groups. The more information that enters the marketplace from these non-media sources, the less control the national media have over the marketplace of news and views. The media corporations today are in no different position than, say, the steel and lumber industries. They turn to the federal government for protection from “unfair” competition. These industries spend lavishly to elect and reelect politicians sympathetic to them. Mr. McCain is among the leading voices railing against the relationship between special-interest contributions and legislative support, labeling it “corrupt.” indeed, in a recent television appearance Mr. McCain alleged: [W]e have seen debasement of the institutions of government, including the corruption of Congress, because of the influence of special interests.” When asked recently by a colleague to name specifically which senator was corrupt, Mr. McCain could not name one. As one of the so-called “Keating Five,” Mr. McCain's own name might well have come to mind. On Nov. 20, 1991, the Senate Committee on Ethics issued a report on, among others, Mr. McCain's relationship with Charles Keating of Lincoln Savings & Loan Association. The report states, in part: “Mr. Keating, his associates, and his friends contributed $56,000 for Sen. McCain's two House races in 1982 and 1984, and $54,000 for his 1986 Senate race. Mr. Keating also provided his corporate plane and/or arranged for payment for the use of commercial or private aircraft on several occasions for travel by Sen. McCain and his family, for which Sen. McCain ultimately provided reimbursement when called upon to do so. Mr. Keating also allowed Sen. McCain and his family to vacation with Mr. Keating and his family, at a home provided by Mr. Keating in the Bahamas, in each of the calendar years 1983 through 1986. Sen. McCain took actions on Mr. Keating's behalf or at his request. The Committee finds that Senator McCain had a basis for each of these actions independent of the contributions and benefits he received from Mr. Keating, his associates and friends. The Committee concludes that, given the personal benefits and campaign contributions he had received from Mr. Keating, Sen. McCain exercised poor judgment in intervening with the regulators without first inquiring to the Bank Board position in the case in a more routine manner.' In fairness, the committee found that Mr. McCain did not break any law or Senate rule. However, based on Mr. McCain's recent pronouncements, his conduct would appear to have been “corrupt.” Moreover, the experience hasn't made him any wiser. His campaign-finance bill would benefit the national media at the expense of its competitors. He seeks to inhibit the ability of political parties to reach voters by banning what is known as “soft money.” These are contributions that can be used by the parties to advance the goals of their candidates. Soft money enables the parties to produce political information in competition with the national media. The other major competitors to the national media are the citizen advocacy groups, like the Christian Coalition and the National Abortion Rights Advocacy League. In the 1976 U.S. Supreme Court case of Buckley vs. Valeo, which held major portions of the campaign finance law to be unconstitutional, a unanimous court ruled that independent advocacy groups could not be regulated at all unless the law was interpreted very narrowly. Thus, the court held that the First Amendment forbade regulations of independent expenditures unless the language employed in the advertising actually advocated the election or defeat of a specifically identified candidate. Therefore, should the Christian Coalition write to voters complaining that a presidential candidate would allow partial-birth abortions, the government would have no power to stop it. Until this year, Mr. McCain's bill would have made illegal criticism by citizen advocacy groups of political candidates during the last few months of a campaign. He only dropped this provision as a failed strategy in search of more votes. But his willingness to have pressed for legislation that a unanimous Supreme Court rejected as a violation of a basic liberty is a statement of contempt for the Constitution rarely matched by any politician. Mr. McCain's Herculean efforts to silence the news industry's competitors have been rewarded with fawning praise. The favorable news coverage costs Mr. McCain no money, and it amounts to an in-kind campaign contribution of inestimable value. It seems that one senator's reform is another senator's “special-interest” pandering. freerepublic.com