"A Betrayal" - Some advice for Bush on campaign-finance reform legislation.

The National Review ^ | February 20, 2002 | National Review Editors

[rightwing2]

“A Betrayal”
Some advice for Bush on campaign-finance reform legislation.
By NR Editors
From the March 11, 2002, issue of National Review

President Bush is reportedly about to commit a cynical and opportunistic act unworthy of his young presidency: signing a disaster of a campaign-finance-reform bill. The bill, as it seems likely to emerge from Congress, is perfect veto bait for Bush: 1) He thinks it is unconstitutional; 2) it violates the principles for reform that he defended during his campaign and enunciated during last year's legislative debate; and 3) it will discourage exactly the sort of engaged citizenry that Bush devotes so much rhetoric to promoting. But Bush seems ready to ignore all of this and instead heed his own narrow political and financial interests, in a capitulation that will require double-backing on his commitments.

The bill, of course, eliminates the unlimited corporate "soft money" donations to political parties, which are supposed to be especially corrupting. But reformers never bother to explain how it is possible for both parties to be corrupted by soft money, when they advocate diametrically opposed positions on most issues. The implication is that the Republican party's conservatism is bought and paid for, and so is the Democratic party's liberalism. This is a pinched and cynical — not to mention false — way to view the world.

The parties are huge, sprawling national organizations pulled every which way by competing special interests. This is exactly the way politics is supposed to work. The same applies to the legislative and regulatory realms. Almost every victory that Enron — the proximate cause of this latest legislation — won in Washington came by prevailing over some other special interest. The Chicago Board of Trade opposed an Enron-supported regulatory exemption for derivatives trading. The utilities opposed Enron's vision of electricity deregulation.

There's nothing wrong with this, unless you consider petitioning the government and contributing to candidates and parties somehow inherently corrupting, as many reformers do. They talk of the current legislation as a prelude to further efforts to chase private money from politics. As a mere prelude, it is appalling enough. The soft-money ban would make the national political parties poorer, and diminish their influence. The parties would have less money for advertising, voter-registration drives, direct-mail pieces, and so on. More important, they would have less money for supporting challengers, who don't yet have the fund-raising clout of incumbents. The current bill is suspiciously full of such provisions helpful to incumbents.

One of the most notorious would prevent citizens' groups funded with unlimited soft-money donations from running ads mentioning an officeholder by name 30 days before a primary or 60 days before a general election. This would force smaller advocacy organizations either to go silent during these periods, or go to the expense and trouble of registering as PACs funded only by limited hard-money donations. (Remember when PACs were the reformers' bogeymen? That seems long ago.) In general, a web of new rules for fundraising, advertising, and "coordination" with candidates would tie outside political groups in knots, limiting their flexibility and ultimately their expression.

The optimistic view of all this is that money will inevitably find a way into the system, and so it will. In a free country, it takes more than one sprawling campaign-finance bill to suppress political speech effectively. But every layer of complexity, every new rule requiring the expertise of a campaign-finance lawyer to negotiate, raises the entry fee to politics. It makes it harder for ordinary citizens to get involved, and makes politics more of a game for experts and insiders, who on the Republican side are urging Bush to sign the bill even as they work to invent ways around it.

It is dismaying that Bush has come to this pass. Depending on how closely you want to read his March 2001 letter on campaign finance, the current bill violates any number of the principles he set out for reform. Bush supported a soft-money ban. On the other hand, he wrote that any bill "should help political parties more fully engage citizens in the political process." This bill does no such thing. He wrote that the bill should "protect the rights of citizen groups to engage in issue advocacy." This is exactly the sort of advocacy the bill would hamstring. He wrote that reform shouldn't favor "incumbents over challengers." This bill does. He wrote that it should include provisions protecting shareholders and union members from having their money spent on politics against their wishes. This bill doesn't.

Bush did not fight for one — not one — of these principles during the debate. He, of course, has a war to run. But perhaps he could have taken some time away from, say, touting the "USA Freedom Corps" to try to influence a substantial reworking of the nation's election system, especially one that raises troubling constitutional questions. Even supporters of the bill admit that parts of it are of dubious constitutionality. In an extraordinary abdication of his responsibilities under the Constitution, however, the president will probably sign the bill in part because the courts can be expected to find elements of it unconstitutional. This is why his aides think signing it is so clever — Bush gets the credit for going along, while the bill is sent straight into constitutional limbo.

The expectation that chunks of the bill will be thrown out is probably, although not necessarily, accurate. The soft-money ban is arguably unconstitutional, although the Supreme Court has repeatedly said large contributions can be corrupting. It seems likelier that the 60-day restriction will be judged unconstitutional. And the same goes for the broad and vague provisions defining "coordination" between candidates and outside groups, which kick in a host of other regulations. The Supreme Court has previously made it clear that such restrictions on political speech — the right at the core of the First Amendment — must be extremely narrow and clear-cut. The idea has traditionally been to carve out a broad, easily understood safe harbor for political speech, which is exactly what the campaign-finance bill intends to undercut. But, all that said, there is no guarantee of how the Court will vote, especially given that the closest questions will probably be decided by that weather-vane justice, Sandra Day O'Connor.

All the more reason for Bush not to pass the buck to the Court. But Bush clearly figures he doesn't need what would play in the media as another Enron-related political headache. Meanwhile, he can raise more hard money — the limits for which are doubled by the bill — than any other presidential candidate, so why should he put himself out over the general fortunes of the Republican party, let alone the Democratic party? Finally, his aides are sometimes reported to think that signing the bill would rob John McCain of his signature issue and any chance of mounting an independent bid in 2004. But no one outside the most devoted McCainiacs thinks such a scenario is plausible. The fact is that the public has little interest in campaign-finance reform. Bush would pay little or no political price for giving it the veto it so richly deserves, and asking Congress to send him another version that, at the very least, is clearly constitutional.

But Bush seems likely to listen to the smart set, instead of what one assumes would be his better instincts. Conservatives were forewarned that, for instance, Bush's education policy might not be much to their liking. He had promised as much for two years. His support for an over-regulatory campaign-finance reform would be something different, not just a disappointment, but a betrayal.

[rightwing2]

While we are at it this reminds me of the hand wringing over the SPY PLANE when people on this forum were so worried Bush was caving in.....BUT he didn't did he? No ! I suggest people take a deep breath and watch this unfold .....before they claim a BETRAYAL...

Actually, I hate to break it to you, but BUSH DID CAVE TO THE CHICOMS. He apologized not once, but twice to the ChiCom terrorist hostage takers saying each time that he was "very sorry." That was just pathetic and exactly the humiliation and deference to the Butchers of Beijing that they were looking for. Bush did a sorry job with his appeasement of Communist China then although he has done very well in other foreign policy areas such as winning the war in Afghanistan and dumping the ABM Treaty. His State Department has since lamely agreed to "compensate" the ChiCom kidnappers to the tune of tens and thousands of dollars to pay for the incarceration of our brave Navy airmen on Hainan Island. Now, Bush is praising Communist China for being a good strategic partner in the war against terrorism when Communist China is one of the prime supporters of terrorist state sponsors like Iran, Iraq, Syria and others and is busy arming them with nuclear weapon and ballistic missile technology so that they can be used as proxies to hit the US with WMD attacks in the future.

[jwalsh07]

Did you call the White House today?

[rightwing2]

Good for you. So exactly which electable candidate IS a true conservative in your eyes?? (HINT: Reagan can't run again.)

Of those that ran for President in 2000, aside from conservative champion Pat Buchanan who has said he will not run again the true conservatives are Keyes, Bauer, Senator Robert Smith, and Howard Phillips--of these Keyes garners the most votes. Former Senator John Ashcroft was my second tier conservative candidate, but with his tainted performance as AG, he would not have nearly as much support from his conservative base to run for President. Other possibilities I would like to see--Senator John Kyl, Senator Jim Inhofe, Assistant Senate Republican Leader Don Nickles. Those are my dream candidates that I think would have a good chance of winning. Governor Mike Foster (R-LA) would be another excellent presidential prospect.

[jwalsh07]

Actually, I hate to break it to you, but BUSH DID CAVE TO THE CHICOMS

Bullshit. Isn't it enough that I have to listen to the leftists in this country rewrite history? Do I have to listen to it from the right also?

[rightwing2]

van you name a hard right president right wing cause reagan raised taxes three times.

Calvin Coolidge was our last constitutional conservative President. He understood what constitutional government was all about and serves as one of the best 20th century examples for 21st century Presidents to follow. Reagan was more of a moderate conservative although probably the best President since at least Herbert Hoover.

[Sloth]

If he signs this bill, I won't vote for him even if he's running against Hillary Clinton -- because then I will have the choice between someone who will gut the bill of rights and someone who did gut the bill of rights.

And I won't vote for either of those choices.

Agreed. Not even my top priority -- getting pro-life SC justices -- will be enough to make me vote for someone who has signed a bill he knows is blatantly unconstitutional -- or, indeed, any politician who defends such action. No veto, no vote. Period.

[rightwing2]

Bullshit. Isn't it enough that I have to listen to the leftists in this country rewrite history? Do I have to listen to it from the right also?

I guess the leftists are not the only ones that are not interested in hearing the facts after all. The truth is that Powell prevailed upon Bush to soft-pedal the ChiCom hostage takers and Rumsfeld who wanted to call them on their aggressive action lost out. As it turned out the hostage crisis did not proceed any differently than it would have if Clinton or Gore had been President. I challenge you to refute the veracity of this analysis. Just because President Bush is a Republican does not mean he does everything right policywise all the time. Far from it, he has continued most of the Clinton policies on foreign policy, immigration policy, trade policy, ChiCom appeasement policy and yes even much of the Clinton domestic policy agenda such as federalizing education and increasing Clinton's Americorps program since coming into office. You should not be surprised that he has done so. He went on record as supporting most of these Clinton policies while running for President.

[Teacher317]

I fail to understand why it appears that Congress thinks CFR is going to cure their admitted, proudly admitted in some cases, corruption and that the American people will believe this piece of stinking offal legislation is the best medicene.

The same way they believed that changing the Constitution would solve the problem in 1913. The Senate was so corrupt (especially in the selection-by-state-lawmaker process) that instead of punishing wrong-doing (as usual), they changed the process to a popular election. Note the rapid and totally successful way that the Seante has overturned any and all corruption ever since.

Of course, this was immediately after they 'solved' the problem of a small budget by ravaging the Constitution and making us all wage-slaves with the income tax, instead of trying some fiscal responsibility.

[Teacher317]

-or- he vetoes it and gets crucified by the press.

A true leader would not care what they said.

[Scarlet Pimpernel]

I am always surprised by the Bush supporters. Bush has actually been quite honest about what he is up to. He said he was not going to pursue Clinton and he hasn't. His supporters came up with how this was masterful politics.
Bush is now saying that he will sign this bill. His supporters are coming up with all kinds of excuses as to how this is "again" masterful politics.
There ARE none so blind as those who will not SEE!

[jwalsh07]

The truth is that Powell prevailed upon Bush to soft-pedal the ChiCom hostage takers and Rumsfeld who wanted to call them on their aggressive action lost out. As it turned out the hostage crisis did not proceed any differently than it would have if Clinton or Gore had been President. I challenge you to refute the veracity of this analysis.

Sure, no problem. But first I'd like to see quotes attributed to Powell and Rumsfield.

Secondly, the spy plane flights resumed two weeks after the troops were returned. If you don't think thats different from what Clinton/Gore would have done, you're wacky.

Third, what was the alternative to what the Bush Admin did? Launch 100 nukes or 200 nukes?

Fourth, Bush announced to all of China, while in China, that we would defend Taiwan. That is 180 degrees different than Clinton/Gore.

Get back to me with Rummies feelings on the matter though, I'd sure be interested.

[jwalsh07]

And who did you support?

[Beenliedto]

And I won't vote for either of those choices.

Welcome aboard!

[rightwing2]

Sure, no problem. But first I'd like to see quotes attributed to Powell and Rumsfield. Secondly, the spy plane flights resumed two weeks after the troops were returned. If you don't think thats different from what Clinton/Gore would have done, you're wacky. Third, what was the alternative to what the Bush Admin did? Launch 100 nukes or 200 nukes? Fourth, Bush announced to all of China, while in China, that we would defend Taiwan. That is 180 degrees different than Clinton/Gore. Get back to me with Rummies feelings on the matter though, I'd sure be interested

History teaches that the appeasement of dictators in the vain hope that they will leave you alone in the short-run is a self-defeating policy in the medium to long run. Instead of following Powell's advice to appease the ChiComs by issuing a humiliating formal apology to the ChiCom hostage takers, he should have followed Rummy's advice by making the case to the world that the ChiCom hotdog pilot was to blame for the entire incident and threaten the PRC with heavy sanctions and perhaps even military action if China did not surrender the 24 American servicemen. Rather than launch nuclear strikes as China as you said, Bush could have announced the immediate cutting off of all trade between the US and Communist China for the duration of the crisis along with a permanent loss of taxpayer subsidized MFN trade status which has slowly been building Communist China into an economic powerhouse and major nuclear and military threat to the United States. He also could have announced withdrawal of US support for WTO membership for Commmunist China. He could have prohibited the sale of supercomputers to Communist China due to this incident.

Instead, let us review what Bush has done to reward the Communist Chinese for threatening our cities with nuclear incineration, arming the Taleban and other terrorist states perhaps including ChiCom help for the Al Queda 9-11 terrorists according to the book, Seeds of Fire, available from WorldNetDaily.com and arming these same terrorist states with the ballistic missiles and nuclear weapons technology with which to strike us in the future as ChiCom proxies. Bush has recently restored US-China military exchanges which disproportunately benefit the PLA and help them better strategize how to defeat the US military. He has championed permanent MFN trade status and WTO membership for Communist China. This permanent MFN trade status is facilitating the transfer of $100 billion a year in US-China trade dollars which Communist China is using to build itself into the best nuclear superpower enemy that US trade surplus dollars can buy. Bush has lifted the pitifully mild sanctions imposed on the PRC for shipping nuclear and missile technologies to their ally, Pakistan.

Bush has issued an executive order which allows the legal sale of US supercomputers which are 50-100 times as powerful as those sold by US companies with Clinton's permission during the Chinagate scandal. These same 600 Clinton permitted supercomputers have allowed the ChiComs to make their nuclear missiles aimed at US cities much more accurate according to GOP Rep. Chris Cox and given them more computing power than the entire Department of Defense according to Rep. Henry Hyde. Yet have we heard a peep from the hypocritical pro-Communist China Republicans in Congress about this outrage which is far worse than that perpetrated by Clinton's allowed sale fof 600 relatively low computing power "supercomputers" to Communist China? Nope! Just some mild protests from Frank Gaffney and other conservative 'superhawks'.

Finally, to add insult to injury, Bush has praised the Communist Chinese terrorists in Beijing for their alleged cooperation as a US strategic partner in the war against terrorism, despite the fact that the PRC may well have assisted the terrorist perpetrators of the 9-11 attacks!! So for you to bury your head in relation to the Bush record on appeasing Communist China in the sand and say Bush can do no wrong and is some kind of Ronald Reagan on foreign policy is just unbelievable. Again, I ask what is the difference between the Clinton-Gore appeasment policy of Communist China and the Bush one other than some as yet unkept promises to help Taiwan defend itself against a potential ChiCom attack?

[jwalsh07]

LOL, I'm still waiting for the quotes rightwing2, not your "feelings". I know how you feel. I'm glad that you don't occupy the White House because even if you managed to start a war with the Chicoms over our sending spy flights over their territory you would have to kill two million a week just to get to neutral population growth.

Something tells me I'll be waiting a long time for those quotes, eh?

[harpo11]

Thank you for your response. I'm in need of far more education on the history of the Senate. I'm thinking it is business as usual. They are corrupt, so punish the people they are supposed to represent. Seems like one big time senatorial frat party. The jokes on us.

[rightwing2]

LOL, I'm still waiting for the quotes rightwing2, not your "feelings". I know how you feel. I'm glad that you don't occupy the White House because even if you managed to start a war with the Chicoms over our sending spy flights over their territory you would have to kill two million a week just to get to neutral population growth. Something tells me I'll be waiting a long time for those quotes, eh?

LOL! Obviously, I hit a sensitive spot with my articulation about the facts about your hero, ChiCom appeaser George W. Bush. The truth hurts, doesn't it. Unfortunately, it appears that you are still a recovering supporter of Communism and pro-Communist policies and that you are too blind to wake up out of your endless slumber until it is far too late and you are a slave to the system. Sadly, it appears that you are one of those "blind, deaf, dumb mutes" that Lenin prophesied would sell the Communists the rope with which to hang themselves. Lenin did not realize how right in assuming that the dupes and appeasers in the West would gladly commit suicide rather than fight or oppose their would-be Communist conquerers.

[gunshy]

I, George W Bush, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and I will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States." President G.W.Bush (2000-2004)

Read my lips, no new taxes
President G.W.H. BUSH (1988-1992)

Integrity runs strong in this family

[Uncle Bill]

BTTT

[Uncle Bill]

BTTT