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

“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.

I desperately hope you are right. I am praying frantically for McConnell, believe me.

I finally(!) managed to post the "Roll Call" article, so no need for anyone else to post. The only positive reason for a statement from Bush's legislative folks on this is to force the Senate to have spines. But trusting the First Amendment to the Senate should give everyone the cold chills.

Well, with the help of the 100 corrupt and cowardly cullions, clinton walked. The senators' justification for their acquittal votes requires the suspension of rational thought (and, in the curious case of Arlen Specter, national jurisdiction).

Musings: Senatorial Courtesy Perverted

Nothing less than humanity, itself, will forever be in the debt of Pres. Bush for having had the courage to take on terrorism FOR REAL. (See:The Real Danger of a Presidential Faker: Post-9/11 Reconsideration of The Placebo Presidency)
But that does not excuse Bush's less-than-courageous decision not to expend political capital to go after clinton corruption. Not to do so threatens democracy--perhaps more slowly--but just as surely as terrorism does. In fact, it would not be a stretch to call the clinton crimes "domestic terrorism."
Frankly, the incestuous, dynastic, professional nature of the current political structure, together with the clintons' limitless access to dark secrets via Filegate, etc., suggest an even less honorable reason than simple politics for the decision "to move on."

The same argument applies to the specious, unconstitutional campaign-finance-reform bill
Q ERTY1 reality-check BUMP!

Bush lobbyists have confirmed he WILL, repeat, WILL sign. This was at the retreat for GOP Chief of Staffs yesterday, and the White House is very very candidate with these folks at these kinds of events. Read the last two paragraphs and weep: Stevens Balks at Reform (Bush will sign CFR)

This is just awful! It looks like I was unduly optimistic about the idea that Bush could be pressured by conservatives into doing the right thing. Obviously, Bush cannot be trusted even for something so basic as to take the minimal action necessary to preserve the Republican Party as a viable party at the congressional level. We will have to work the phones to get the RINOs in the Senate to switch sides and filabuster the bill. Otherwise all is lost!

I for one will still support the President.

See I think everyone is forgetting something here. Bush isn't playing the same old inside the beltway game. We all know he would be hammered if he veto's this bill, so by sending out the word he will sign it....he is telling the House and Senate GOP he won't do there dirty work..

Remember this Admin. plays chess.......not checkers!

I am sorry to see that you won't vote for him again....oh well.

This isn't disinformation ...he will sign it..

It should have never got this far....

You want to BLAME someone ....you look to McCain....Shays....and the 40+ Freaking RINO's in the HOUSE!!!!!

Fine, if he manages to keep the bill from hitting his desk, I will mark one up to his brave and brilliant leadership and vote for him in 2004.

I am sorry to see that you won't vote for him again

If he signs the bill I will not vote for him.

....oh well.

Presidents who win by 500 vote margains don't have the luxury to say 'oh well'.

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...

I agree but it doesn't hurt to be outraged at the LIBERALS and John McCain!

CLICK on photo to see larger image but watch your blood pressure.
Sen. Russ Feingold, D-Wis, right and Sen. Dick Gephardt, D-Mo, celebrate the campaign spending bill clearing the House with House and Senate collegues at a news conference in the Capitol Thursday, Feb. 14, 2002. Senate backers, led by Sens. Feingold and McCain now need 60 votes to stop a likely filibuster and win approval for sending the bill directly to President Bush for his signature. (AP Photo/ Evan Vucci)

I agree...it doesn't

This should never have reached this point...... we are going after each other over what.....?

This is all a McCain and Daschle phony issue designed to drive a wedge between Bush and his base(US)!

Right now, I think Bush is attempting to teach the Republicans to be accountable for themselves.
They've been without backbone since the Clinton liberal press ganged up on them.
America likes Bush, and Clinton is yesterdays news.
It's time they sood up, and spoke out on their own.
They're big people now, and it's time to grow up.
They need to learn how to defend themselves against the socialists politics of personal destruction, and give it right back to them.
Bush is right by not saying much. The congressmen and senators need to get a lot more backbone. Bush ain't gonna carry them.
If Bush can get these panty waists to start standing up for themselves, Republicans will be the strongest party ever. The truth is so much more powerful than lies if people get a chance to hear it.

You want to BLAME someone ....you look to McCain....Shays....and the 40+ Freaking RINO's in the HOUSE!!!!!

Whatever happened to Harry Truman's presidential slogan, "the buck stops here"? We need a President who is willing to respect responsiblity for his own actions and wrongdoing. I should think that we all would have learned that from the former Philanderer in Chief's record in office. No, Bush will be to blame if he signs this "evil" bill. What is he going to say when his conservative base abandons him wholesale in 2004 for third party conservative candidates--John McCain, the Congress and the Democrats made me do it? Was it not Bush's own press secretary that stated that Bush thought the Democrat Incumbent Protection Act was a good bill and that he would sign it on the crucial day it was being voted providing cover for 41 RINOs to defect that otherwise may not have if Bush had taken a principled stand on this issue instead of trying to play a stupid guessing game? Will he or won't he? That's not the stuff that strong principled Presidents are made of. Bush has blown it big it on this one by refusing to provide one shred of leadership here. Apparently, the man is nearly as devoid of political core principles as his scandal-ridden predecessor.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.