
                         Roanoke Times
                 Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.

DATE: THURSDAY, June 17, 1993                   TAG: 9308250329
SECTION: EDITORIAL                    PAGE: A14   EDITION: METRO 
SOURCE: 
DATELINE:                                 LENGTH: Medium

PARTISANSHIP

THE DEMOCRATIC National Committee has decided its idea of a fat-cat foundation to sell President Clinton's still-in-the-oven health-reform plan wasn't, after all, such a swell idea.

It sure wasn't.

Calling themselves a nonpartisan lobby for health-care reform, foundation officials had notions of raising $37 million from corporations, unions, rich people and - who else? - lobbyists. They hoped prospective donors would include industries and groups to be affected by the health plan - not excepting insurance and drug companies that Clinton and his missus, health-care-reform czar Hillary Clinton, have blamed in part for spiraling health costs.

But the foundation had been set up under rules allowing it to shield contributors' names and the size of their donations. It would have operated, in other words, under the same kind of soft-money scam that Clinton would halt with campaign-finance reform.

After the press got wind of this, the Democratic National Committee said it would dissolve the foundation. Fine. President Clinton has enough troubles without more hypocrisy charges thrown in his face.

The committee is not, however, dropping plans to raise the $37 million, to support a national media blitz in favor of the Clintons' health-reform package. It simply will do so under the party's own auspices.

This will solve one problem for Clinton. Rules that govern party fund-raising require that the names of donors be disclosed, so the public at least will know who's trying to buy influence.

It might, however, create another equally serious problem.

Clinton has said repeatedly that health-care reform is not a partisan issue. Given the expected complexity and enormous costs of Mrs. Clinton's package, the president probably has not a prayer of getting it through Congress without bipartisan support.

So is it really in Clinton's - or the nation's - interest to have the highly partisan Democratic group in charge of selling the package?

Wouldn't Republican legislators be more reluctant to buy the thing if it were wrapped that way?

by CNB