>>1158519

Q, should I make a timeseries of net worths?

Mad Max, Obama, Pelosi, Clinton?

>>1158695

IRON EAGLE IS BACK BABY

White House of ill repute

Open mocking of US electoral law by Democrats and Republicans has

shaken any lingering belief in politicians’ ethics, says Patti Waldmeir

There is a febrile qual-

ity to the politics of

Washington at the

moment The political

classes are consumed

by a fever of indignation. For sev-

eral weeks, the politicians and

the media have fought what

amounts to a holy war over the

issue of money and politics.

Tbe argument is pursued in the

highest of moral tones: at the

heart is tbe charge US politi-

cians - and, most especially.

President Bill Clinton and the

Democrats - have sullied the

nation's democracy by selling

access, and even national policy,

to the highest bidder.

Critics say the frenzy of fund-

raising which he led has infected

the body politic, overwhelming

the country’s fragile, campaign

finance laws and exacerbating an

already widespread public crisis

of confidence in government.

President Clinton is accused of

violating the most basic principle

of American democracy: that all

voices, and all votes, are inher-

ently equal. The constitution

requires him to lend an ear to all

260m American voices equally.

He is accused of listening more

intently to those which are

amplified by cash, and, most

damagingly. to those of people

who are not voters at all but for-

The president acknowledges

pursuing a fund-raising cam-

paign unprecedented in its scope

and its frenzy. But be defends his

actions in terms of the national

interest: he had to raise huge

sums to defeat the foot-soldiers of

the Republican revolution.

“We were fi ghting a battle not

simply for our re-election but

. over the entire direction of the

country for years to come," he

said last week, on the defensive

after a spate of damaging revela-

tions about how he and Mr A1

Gore, the vicapresident, used the

White House to raise funds.

These included the release of

internal White House documents

showing the president charged

510,000 to have his picture taken

with donors, and set a target

price of $50.0005100,000 for con-

tributors to stay overnight in tbe

Lincoln bedroom. A few days

later. Mr Gore admitted he solic-

ited donations direct from his

White House office.

Still, the president is

r undaunted. .T don’t regret the

fact that we worked like crazy to

raise enough money to keep from

bring roDdd over by tbe biggest

juggernaut this, country has seen

in a very long time."

Campaign finance abuse was

not invented for the 1906 cam-

paign. The cost of campaigns has

risen sharply in recent years, and

each one has brought new abuses

of fund-raising limits imposed

after Watergate. But last year the

parties stopped even pretending

to obey the rules.

This was partly fuelled by Mr

Clinton’s personal obsession with

raising money. “He decided it

was Armageddon." says Mr Fred

Wertheimer, veteran campaign

reformer, co m menting on the

president's sense of vulnerability.

On the advice of Mr Dick Mor-

ris, his campaign adviser, the

president pioneered a new ruse to

get round a $37m limit on spend-

ing for the primary election cam-

paign. He used the Democratic

party to finance an extra $44m in

early television advertisements

which may have clinched the

election. Parties can collect virtu-

ally unlimited donations of “soft

money" for so-called “issues

advocacy” so long as they are not

used to promote a particular can-

didate. But this fa the thinnes t of

fictions: Democratic “issues" ads

prominently featured the presi-

dential visage.

The Republican party did the

same , if an ything on a grander

scale. It even used the same film

in candidate and “issues”

adverts. Republicans raised

5141m in soft money, Democrats

5122m. a combined total nearly

three times higher than the 1992

election. This open mocking of

the electoral laws has shaken

any lingering public belief in foe

ethics of politicians.

>>1159053

All this has brought foe Ameri-

can political system under foe

most intense scrutiny since

Watergate. L egislati ve energy is

sapped by foe fever of a scandal

which could prove seriously

debilitating for months to come.

The national political agenda and

the media are consumed by it.

There is an element of false

naivety about some of the furore,

says lobbyist Mr Steve Stock-

meyer, of foe National Associa-

tion of Business Political Action

Committees (a gathering of busi-

ness lobby groups). “Oh my God,

people are committing politics!”

he says in mock outrage.

There is also a measure of

hypocrisy: some of foe commen-

tators who are pillorying the

president for enticing donors

with meals, coffees or sleep-overs

in the White House manoeuvre

fiercely for a place at the presi-

dent’s table. Almost everyone

enjoys proximity to power that

sentiment probably motivated

many, if not most of those who

flocked to the White House, even

if there were some who expected

more concrete b enefit s.

Proving what those benefits

were is difficult. Common sense

suggests rational people would

not give large sums without the

expectation of a profitable return.

But even those who follow foe

money trail professionally say its

path is at best obscure.

The Center far Responsive Poli-

tics, a democracy advocacy group

which published a study. Cashing

in: a guide to money, votes and

public policy in the 104th Con-

gress, notes “even when money

seems, to play a role in a policy

debate, it’s seldom foe only factor

affecting lawmakers' derisions”.

V oting is influenced by

“geography, ideology,

temperament, party,

age, education, per-

sonal friendships or

rivalries”, foe study says. Most

political scientists would agree:

money is rarely foe determining

facto*.

Partly, says Mr Norm Ornstein

of the American Enterprise Insti-

tute, this is because public policy

debates pit different monied

interests against each other. “It

works foe way [founding father

James] Madison basically figured

it would work: these interests

balance each other out"

Mr Paul Taylor, a campaign

finance reformer who has spear-

headed a drive for free political

advertising on television, says

campaign cash “works on the

small V of policy, not on the big

‘P’ " - it might be able to affect

the small details of legislation

rather than its general thrust.

However, he adds that “there is

sometimes a lot of money to be

made on fog small *p' ",

Most political scientists believe

money does not so much pur-

chase votes as reward them after

the fact: and it follows foe politi-

cal predispositions of members

more often than it leads them.

Yet much criticism of the presi-

dent assumes foe big “P" policies

set by foe White House bear a

price tag: that White House pol-

icy on China, for example, was

heavily influenced by foe dona-

tions of Asian Americans who

may have raised some money

from official Chinese sources.

Some 53m in donations, largely

from Mr John Huang, a former

Democratic fund-raiser and Com-

merce official, has been returned

by the Democratic party, though

no official Chinese link has been

proved.

Officials of the State Depart-

ment and National Security

Council say it is ludicrous to sug-

gest foe president sold US-China

policy to Beijing. Policy was

reversed in his first term, from

an emphasis on punishing

human rights abuses to a policy

of constructive engagement, but

there were overwhelming strate-

gic and commercial reasons.

“The chief executives of the

Fortune 500 companies - most of

whom gave nothing to the Clin-

ton campaign and do not even

vote Democratic - had much

more influence over China policy

than John Huang." says Air Om-

stein. He says it is “really far-

fetched” to Imagine US foreign

policy is for sale: “You have to go

through so many layers to get a

policy derision … that it would

almost require a conspiracy."

What foreigners and other

donors can buy, though, is access

to the president, and that is not

without commercial value. In

some cases, campaign donors

gained places on overseas trade

missions. And foreign business-

men can easily turn a photo-

graph with foe president into the

kind of status symbol that can

generate profits back home.

But it is a murky business. The

bottom line is that no one really

knows what favours the candi-

dates dispensed for campaign

cash. And despite protestations

to the contrary, politicians

appear none too keen to find out

• let alone to reform the system.

>>1159059

After much squabbling, Con-

gress looks set to agree an inves-

tigation which will avoid tbe

issue of “soft money” almost alto-

gether, focusing only on Illegal

activities of the presidential and

congressional campaigns. This

could limit its scope for, as Mr

Morris says, '“these are such had

laws with so many loopholes,

you'd have to be an absolute

genius to be a criminal".

Outside Washington, foe public

is indifferent or scornful. Most

dismiss foe bloodsport between

politicians and journalists as a

Washington game with no rele-

vance outside the Capitol

beltway. Opinion polls find foe

public disgusted by the cost and

ethics of campaigns but cynical

about prospects for change.

Much will depend on the

momentum of the scandal as it

develops. It could dissipate or

build to a pitch which will drown

all presidential utterances on any

other subject Mr Clinton's legis-

lative agenda, his attempts to use

the “bully pulpit* to urge changes

he cannot legislate, and his very

reputation as a president could

fall casualty to foe crisis.

Meanwhile, both parties have

started fund-raising for foe next

congressional elections - at foe

end of 1998.

https:// archive.org/stream/FinancialTimes1997UKEnglish/Mar%2010%201997%2C%20Financial%20Times%2C%20%2334%2C%20UK%20%28en%29_djvu.txt