Roanoke Times
Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: THURSDAY, January 21, 1993 TAG: 9301210449
SECTION: EDITORIAL PAGE: A-13 EDITION: METRO
SOURCE: RAY L. GARLAND
DATELINE: LENGTH: Long
THREE BIG ENTREES ON THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY'S PLATE
THE 1993 VIRGINIA General Assembly seems to want to load its plate to overflowing by introducing far more bills than it can possibly consider carefully. Many will be minor distractions, so what about some of the main attractions?Gun control. When you take on an organization such as the National Rifle Association, which has the capacity to target overnight every gun lover in your district, you must be very careful to give the fight the highest possible visibility. You must also be prepared to keep on defending your position in every future campaign.
For every citizen willing to go to the mat against any politician espousing the least infringement upon the right to keep and bear arms, there are probably two who favor reasonable restrictions. But few of that number make this the sole or main determining point in supporting or opposing a candidate. And even if they can be interested in a gun issue, they quickly forget who did what.
The NRA never forgets, and its power is based upon the perception that it seldom if ever ceases to persevere against those who have opposed it, try as they might to make amends.
Gov. Douglas Wilder deserves high marks for raising the question of limiting the purchase of handguns to one per customer per month to that highest level of visibility. And some of the state's major newspapers have weighed in with a full-court press of publicity, detailing the horrors of lawlessness in our own inner-city neighborhoods, and the sorrow caused in Northeastern states by guns purchased easily in Virginia.
What price? At least one group, the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence, is threatening a tourism boycott of Virginia if Wilder's bill fails to pass. "If you kowtow to the National Rifle Association," its president said, "there has to be an economic price." But legislators are likely to be more concerned with the political price.
The presumptive power of the NRA to decide the outcome of closely fought elections is well-accepted by politicians, if not always conclusively demonstrated. In this fight, however, the NRA is waging a massive campaign via paid radio and newspaper advertisements, shifting the focus to the need for greater safeguards in verifying the identity of those buying handguns. The fact that it sees the need to justify its position in this way is probably a good sign that it sees the tide shifting the other way - if not now, then soon.
As the District of Columbia's delegate to Congress recently said, "Gov. Wilder's plan to limit handgun purchases to one per month is pathetically modest." So it is, and you have to wonder how much good it will do. But you also have to wonder what's going on in Virginia, where State Police say there's an active, licensed gun-dealer for every 1,100 citizens!
Win or lose on this particular bill - and it surely won't pass in its original form - something on the gun-control front will emerge from this session of the legislature. That will go a ways toward rehabilitating Wilder's tarnished image even if it does little to stop the slaughter.
Testing labor's power. Wilder quietly gave organizations representing state employees the right to collect dues by automatic deduction from state paychecks. This is the lifeblood of any labor union. It's doubtful that organized labor could have got a bill through the legislature granting this privilege. Attorney General Mary Sue Terry said that since Virginia did not grant the right of collective bargaining to public employees, the legislature should decide the issue. She stopped short of saying Wilder had exceeded his authority, however, and made no commitment to work toward undoing what he had done.
This is an important question because it moves us closer to unionization of governmental employees in Virginia. Republicans will be pushing a bill to rescind the dues checkoff. But don't look for it to pass or even pick up the support of more than a handful of Democratic legislators. Some of the business people who regularly drop tens of thousands into Democratic coffers might scratch their head at this, but not to worry. President Clinton has said he would sign a bill mandating collective bargaining for all state and local government employees if it reached his desk.
Campaign financing. If there are strong feelings on both sides of gun control and collective bargaining for public employees, no constituencies are prepared to defend the role of special-interest money in political campaigns - unless it's their own. Now comes Wilder's Commission on Ethics to save us from ourselves. Despite their distaste for moralistic high dudgeon, legislators feel they have to pass something and go home hailing it as a reform.
Some of the commission's ideas, such as random audits of a few campaign-finance reports and identifying all sources of campaign funding are OK, though no one has yet found a way to sanitize politics.
But when you propose to limit what people can give to support the policies or candidates of their choice you begin to diminish rights and load the dice in favor of some at the expense of others. Let's face it: When you create a political system in which government routinely considers measures having the power to make or break large chunks of the economy, those affected must protect themselves.
Plug one hole and another will be found. Besides, nobody is going to prevent organized labor or the NRA from using the force of their numbers, or the power of their permanent apparatus, to work their will. When a candidate or interest is faced with this kind of power, money for media can be their sole defense.
Ray L. Garland is a Roanoke Times & World-News columnist.