By
Lora J. Mackel
Payback is a bitch, as the newly chosen President is about to find out. When he lambasted his well-liked Republican rival John McCain, Bush ensured that he would later pay a heavy price for his accusations.
That price is now being exacted in the form of the McCain-Feingold bill, which addresses the hot issue of campaign finance reform. McCain lost his bid for the Republican nomination, but he is now trying to upstage his president by portraying him as anti-reformist on an issue that has caught America's attention.
And when looking on Bush's political philosophy and influences, it is not really a surprise that he opposes real campaign finance reform.
McCain and his Democratic colleague, Wisconsin Sen. Russ Feingold, tried to pass their campaign finance bill a year before. The bill is an important legislative part of a movement against big money's influence on the political process.
To rectify these evils, the bill proposes that a cap be placed on soft money. Soft money is money that is donated to political parties and sent to states expressly for "party building activities." But this money is usually redirected to specific candidates. There is also no cap on the amount of soft money that can be donated.
With no restrictions on soft money donations, the lobbying situation in Washington, D.C. has gotten out of control. Very profitable businesses, such as the petroleum and pharmaceutical industries, donate significant amounts of money in exchange for significant amounts of influence. In this climate, the average American citizen feels his voice drowned out by the torrents of money going to their representatives.
Consequently, on the national and local levels, people have been organizing campaigns to limit the amounts of soft money that can be donated to politicians and parties. Since lawmakers from both parties benefit from the current system, it has been difficult to get support for this cause within the legislature. This is why the McCain-Feingold bill is such an important first step in reforming our political system.
Bush, however, has much to be afraid of if this bill passes. In the last election cycle, Bush raised nearly $100 million in political donations, breaking every fundraising record. His administration is also very pro-business. Businesses do not want to lose their foothold in Washington, and the President does not want to lose the fundraising edge his party currently has.
Bush, therefore, is in between a political rock and a hard place. He cannot appear to the nation to be opposed to reform, nor can he concede to the reformers and endanger his helpful political relationships. Not to be outdone, Bush has come up with a perfect way to stall the process: a paycheck protection clause. Bush is demanding that union workers be given paycheck protection-that is, unions must get the permission of their members before they donate to political parties.
Because the Democrats get the lion's share of union funds, the paycheck clause assures that Democrats will reject the bill. Admittedly, the Democrats look just as bad as Bush in this case. If Bush plays this up correctly, he will escape a sticky political situation beautifully. He looks like a reformer, without leading any reform.
Politicians are not the only villains in the campaign finance reform battle. Both major parties are responsible for the corruption that is rampant in Washington, and both are responsible for reforming it.
Things need to change, but George W. Bush will not be leading the reform.
