|
|  |  |
 |  | |
| ||
| |||||||
| |||||||
|
| ||||||
| |||||||
| |||||||
 Recent commentary from National Journal: Social Studies: Privacy Is an Innocent Victim in the Chandra Levy Case (July 24, 2001) No one, not even a Congressman, should have to prove his innocence to the press in order to secure privacy. By Jonathan Rauch. On Books: Economists of the World, Pucker Up (July 24, 2001) A review of a romantic novel set in Washington (where else?) that makes a case for free-market economics. By Jonathan Rauch. Media: From Here to Eternity (July 16, 2001) Coverage of artificial hearts, cell phone dangers, and Lance Armstrong have something in common. By William Powers. Political Pulse: President Lets Democrats Seize the Center (July 16, 2001) Bush's support is slowly drifting down to its base level, just under 50 percent. By William Schneider. On Books: Brace Yourself, World (July 16, 2001) A look at potential wars over natural resources. By K. Daniel Glover. More from National Journal. |
Political Pulse 
Winning by LosingIronies abound in House vote to shelve campaign finance reform by William Schneider .... The U.S. House is not known for its sense of irony, but ironies abound in the July 12 House vote on campaign finance reform. Irony No. 1. Democrats beat Republicans on a crucial test of party loyalty—and in the process set back the Democratic cause. In an unusual act of defiance, 19 Republicans voted with the House's Democratic minority to challenge the GOP leadership's control of the House floor debate of the issue. So what happened? The Democrats' campaign finance bill has been shelved indefinitely. Irony No. 2. The Republican leaders, who were supposed to be embarrassed by the defeat, managed to spin it into a victory. The GOP interpretation: Reformers defeated their own bill by voting not to allow it to come up for a vote. As Sen. Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., the archenemy of campaign finance reform, put it: "Reformers killed reform." Irony No. 3. Now each side gets to argue an unprovable point. Republicans claim that Democrats didn't have the votes to pass campaign finance reform. But Democrats claim that Republicans refused to allow a vote on the issue. The Republicans say they would have allowed a vote, under the procedure that Democrats struck down. The GOP leadership would have forced a vote on every one of the 14 amendments, which were designed to hold the Democrats' fragile coalition together. It is unlikely the coalition would have survived all those votes. But who's to blame here—the Republicans, for seeking to require separate votes, or the Democrats, for failing to build a coalition hardy enough to withstand such challenges? Irony No. 4. Both sides "won" by losing. Democrats won by averting an outright defeat of the campaign finance bill. "The issue is not going away," Rep. Christopher Shays, R-Conn., pledged after the House rules vote. Republicans won by averting a vote on the measure, freeing themselves from having to vote against reform. Such an action could have been difficult to explain—especially for those among the 54 House Republicans who voted for the Shays-Meehan bill in 1999 but who were not prepared to do so this year. This year, unlike 1999, Republicans could not rely on the Senate to stop the measure. Irony No. 5. Republicans pulled a "Clinton." When Bill Clinton was President, he used to drive Republicans crazy by stealing their issues. The GOP Congress would pass welfare reform legislation or a balanced-budget bill, and President Clinton would veto it, saying, "I'm for that—but not that much." This year, House Republicans rallied behind an alternative campaign finance reform bill that would limit, but not ban, "soft money." Their message was, "We're for reform, but not that much." That is more or less the same thing Republicans are doing on the patients' bill of rights and prescription drug benefits. Irony No. 6. Democrats may not have been entirely unhappy to see campaign finance reform stalled. In recent years, Democrats have kept pace with Republicans in raising soft money. But Republicans still enjoy a substantial advantage in raising regulated "hard money." A Democratic campaign consultant told The Washington Post: "There is absolute unanimity on the part of the Democratic consulting community that this bill is a disaster for Democrats." Irony No. 7. The Shays-Meehan bill, intended to curb the influence of special interests, occasioned a huge lobbying effort by interest groups. Arrayed against the bill were the National Rifle Association, the American Civil Liberties Union, the National Right to Life Committee, the National Education Association, and many labor unions. They opposed provisions to restrict issue advertising by independent interest groups. Irony No. 8. The measure got a lot of support from public-interest groups, but not much public interest. Yes, polls showed a high level of public support for campaign finance reform. But as a voter priority, the issue is rated very low. Representatives came back from their Fourth of July recess talking about how rarely the issue came up in public forums. Irony No. 9. Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., claims to have a mandate for campaign finance reform as a result of the 2000 presidential primaries. But the reason McCain did well in the primaries was that he was the "un-Clinton." He defied Big Money and promised "straight talk." It was McCain who propelled campaign finance reform into prominence. The issue did not propel him. Irony No. 10. No group of legislators was more influential in the bargaining than the Congressional Black Caucus, which enhanced its influence on this issue by not sticking together. Several black Democrats endorsed the alternative bill favored by the Republican leadership. What drove them to oppose the Shays-Meehan bill? Florida. Black legislators suddenly realized that banning soft money might doom efforts to protect minority voting rights. Division actually increased the Black Caucus's bargaining power during this debate. The reform bill's sponsors had to make changes to attract black support. Those changes enabled House Republican leaders to stop the bill by insisting that the amendments be voted on one at a time. Campaign finance is an issue that gets a lot of lip service from politicians and from the public. What it lacks is serious commitment. That's what this year's debate proved.
What do you think? Discuss this article in the Politics & Society conference of Post & Riposte. More from National Journal. More on politics and society in Atlantic Unbound and The Atlantic Monthly. William Schneider is the Cable News Network's senior political analyst. He is also a resident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute in Washington, D.C., and a contributing editor for the Los Angeles Times, National Journal, and The Atlantic Monthly. His column appears every week in National Journal, a weekly magazine covering politics and government published in Washington, D.C. For information on National Journal Group publications, see NationalJournal.com. Copyright © 2001 by The Atlantic Monthly Group. All rights reserved. |
| ||
|
Home |
Current Issue |
Back Issues |
Forum |
Site Guide |
Feedback |
Subscribe |
Search
| ||||
