AUSTIN, Texas -- As I write, the most riveting television drama
imaginable is being played out on C-Span, of all places.
The U.S. House of Representatives is debating campaign finance
reform, and it's one of those days when all citizens should be political
junkies. It doesn't get better than this -- the stakes couldn't be higher,
the tension couldn't be thicker, the theater is superb. Passion, drama,
comedy, hypocrisy, devious plot devices, splendid villains, noble heroes ...
this is just the best. The casting director has a spectacular imagination:
Tom DeLay and Dick Armey alternating in the role of Iago -- wow.
Speaker Dennis Hastert himself called the innocuous-sounding
Shays-Meehan bill "Armageddon" for the Republican Party. Actually, it's more
like "The Perils of Pauline," in which the dastardly villain keeps tying the
helpless heroine (in this case, the Shays-Meehan bill) to the railroad
tracks again. They've tried to kill this poor bill so
many times and in so many ways, it's become slightly ludicrous.
In the 19th century, when politics was a popular pastime, this
would have been the World Series, the Super Bowl, the Stanley Cup and the
Final Four. It's Washington's Winter Olympics and, boy, is it cool. (Chet
Edwards of Texas just called soft money "a cancer on democracy." It's
Metaphor City out there. He also said, "Saying money is the same as free
speech lends a whole new meaning to the phrase, 'Money talks.'")
As we all know, money talks in Washington to the point where the
whole country is cynical, disgusted and just about completely fed up with
politics. (Ooooh, a great performance by J. D. Hayworth of Arizona, speaking
in favor of the Trojan horse substitute by Dick Armey, which is offered, of
course, to kill Shays-Meehan. Hayworth has just accused those who oppose
this poison pill of "cynicism," of not really wanting to ban soft money. Now
that's cynicism!)
Just to prove the how fouled up the whole system is, the
National Association of Broadcasters (big money-givers) is even now trying
to kill this bill because it contains a provision that would make TV ads
cheaper for politicians to buy. What right does the Congress of the United
States have to try to save democracy if it costs the NAB? Perfect.
If Shays-Meehan makes it out of the House alive, it will fix
only half the problem -- but in politics, if you can get half a loaf, take
it. The bill leaves a nasty loophole that will permit the special interests
to make soft-money contributions to state parties for get-out-the-vote
efforts and "voter education," also known as political ads. The bill also
ups the limit on hard money, given directly to candidates, from $1,000 to
$2,000. As David Corn of The Nation notes, "Americans who ante up the
maximum amount double their influence, and this is not a demographically
diverse group."
Your true reformers on this subject favor public campaign
financing, having the citizens pay for elections so that whoever wins owes
nobody but the people. Trouble with that is, we don't want to pay for every
nuthatch in town to run for public office on the Vegetarian Rights platform
or whatever. But separating the wheat from the chaff, candidate-wise (Bob
Ney of Ohio has just explained why he is planning to vote for what he
considers a very bad proposal: It's awful, and I'm for it.) is not that
difficult.
A congressional candidate would have to start by raising X
amount (a substantial but not prohibitive sum) in small donations from
people who live in his or her district. This shows that the citizen is well
thought of by many people who know him and would probably make a decent
candidate. After raising that amount, the citizen qualifies for a limited
amount of public money to run his campaign. In Arizona, the original public
financing bill had part of the pool of public money coming in from a special
tax on lobbyists -- a beautiful touch, just artistic, unfortunately the
courts wouldn't uphold it. The money now comes from a 10 percent surcharge
on civil and criminal fines and a voluntary check-off on state tax returns.
(The House is now in a general spat because the reformers have
mentioned several issues on which special interests have triumphed over the
public interest -- including gas pipeline safety -- because of heavy
campaign contributions. The anti-reformers are indignantly, claiming that
their honor has been impugned, and by Harry, their vote
is not for sale and anyone who says so is a rat scoundrel.
It's very bad form in legislative circles to insult the other
guy -- personal attacks are much frowned on - even if everybody knows the
guy is a whore. (Rep. Dennis Kucinich of Ohio has just passionately
demanded, "Let my people go!")
To find out more about Molly Ivins and read features by other
Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate web
page at
www.creators.com.
COPYRIGHT 2002 CREATORS SYNDICATE, INC.
