By: Mary Mostert, Analyst, Banner of Liberty (www.bannerofliberty.com)
March 22, 2001
The Senate yesterday, in a 69-31 decision, defeated an amendment that would have removed millions of dollars of soft money from the Federal Election process. In case you just arrived from the planet Mars, getting rid of soft money is the supposed primary purpose of the McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform bill now being debated in the Senate.
The amendment to the bill introduced by Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-UT) would require both unions and companies to get permission from union members and individual shareholders before using dues or corporate investments for political activity. It was an even handed approach to the problem endorsed by President Bush.
Although it was directed at both corporations and unions, Sen. Edward Kennedy, (MA-D) said "It's directed against union activity." Some Republicans, apparently, think it as directed against corporations.
At this point, it appears, a bi-partisan majority appears agreed upon at least one principle: the First Amendment rights of the 40% of union members who are Republicans are not an issue here and the First Amendment rights of shareholders who may disagree with the politics of the company they partially own are not an issue here. The whole purpose of getting rid of soft money is to eliminate from the election process those troublesome groups that spend their own money to point out the candidates who agree with their position. Presumably it would become illegal, for example, for any group to run issue ads in support of a candidate who favors continued public support for the Boy Scouts' rights, as defined by the U.S. Supreme Court, to choose the qualifications of Scout leaders. On the other hand, if a Union or a corporation wants to run an ad to deny the Scouts the use of national parks, that would be permissible under the law they are concocting.
New York Democrat Sen. Charles E. Schumer said in the debate that the purpose of the Hatch amendment was to "plain and simple, to kill the bill." Kennedy charged "It's a very, very poor attempt to get parity between corporate and union funding of political candidates and get-out-the-vote drives by state and national parties. It's poorly constructed, poorly drafted, and it doesn't do the job its proponents want it to do."
A clearly annoyed Hatch replied, "I don't need a lecture from the distinguished senator from Massachusetts on how to write legislation. . . . We all know what's going on here. Forty percent of union people are Republican but virtually 100 percent of union money goes to support Democrats. They will fight to the death to make sure that those 40 percent of Republicans have nothing to say about how their money is spent."
Earlier in the day the Senate, in an almost identical plurality, 70-30, also voted in favor of Sen. Robert Torricelli's (D-NJ) amendment to require television networks and stations throughout the country to provide year-round advertising time for federal political candidates at the "lowest available rates." The Amendment then defined what the Senate means by "available." It means that other advertisers pay full rate while the politicians get first choice at lower rates. Commercial advertisers, for example, would be prohibited from buying up the best time slots at the higher rates, before the politicians bought up the time at the lower rates.
As Torricelli put it, "It is a major form of network profits," amounting to $770 million in the 1999-2000 election cycle, a 76 percent increase over 1996." The current law requires political candidates to be given the "lowest unit rate" for TV ads, but in the New York market just 15 percent of political ads got that rate and 78 percent were being charged higher commercial rates to avoid being shown past prime-time evening viewing hours according to Torricelli. He also lambasted "the almost unbelievable hypocrisy" of networks that criticize politicians for their campaign spending, saying the networks are "part of the problem of the need for big money in the political process. "They want change, they just don't want to be a part of it," he said.
Sen. Richard J. Durbin, Illinois Democrat, said TV networks "are paying no attention whatsoever to elections and campaigns unless the candidates show up with money in hand and are prepared to pay the outrageous charges that have been leveled against them."
The McCain Feingold bill appears to be causing some real rifts in old friendships. First it was a rift between Senator McCain and one of his few remaining Republican friends in the Senate, Chuck Hagel. Then it was the acrimonious exchange yesterday between Senator Kennedy and his friend Senator Orrin Hatch. Now we seem to have a rift between the left-leaning networks and the Democrats over the money in politics.
Torricelli is wrong if he thinks the networks want any kind of change in the money spent today in the political process. All they are looking for is an issue that might get people watching TV news again. At this point, the public at large seems very much tuned out where campaign finance, and most issues outside their stock portfolios, their ability to heat their homes, have dependable electric power and gas for their cars, are concerned. In fact, it appears to me that the Senate is fiddling with McCain-Feingold while the electorate is beginning to do a slow burn.
For example, the Senate debate is not even on the front page of the Sacramento Bee. What Californians are concerned about, now that the State has successfully managed to take over the power problem, is the threat that the power situation now may bankrupt the State, as well as the private power plants of the State. Yesterday a Federal judge ordered a major power wholesaler to sell to California, while simultaneously denying the wholesaler's request that the State PAY for the power it is buying. At this point the power plants are something like $13 billion in debt to the wholesalers, who are out of state suppliers mostly.
As a former resident of Northern California, I can't help but think of how much electric power could be generated if some of those billions of dollars had been used to re-open the Rancho Seco nuclear power plant that was foolishly closed down in 1989. Since then, something like 82% of the power used in the area once serviced by Rancho Seco has been purchased from out of State. The question now is: Should residents of surrounding states, Nevada, Utah, Colorado, New Mexico, Oregon, who don't have the price controls that allow Californians to have low electric rates, pay even HIGHER energy costs so Californians, can have cheap rates? After all, it was California voters who were stupid enough to close down the power plant that supplied 2700 megawatts of power, which supplied electricity for more than 2 million homes for the Northern Part of the state. It was closed down and no other plant was built to replace it by Californians because of the opposition of the environmentalists.
On a scale of one to ten, at this point, McCain-Feingold's unconstitutional, First Amendment destroying bill is not even on most people's radar screen. They aren't worried one bit about TV political ads right now. They are only worried about whether they will have the electricity needed to RUN their TVs.
To comment: mmostert@bannerofliberty.com
To Subscribe to the Reagan Monitor, the newsletter that gives you news FACTS you can USE to make your life, and the world, better go to:
Start Your Subscription
