Roanoke Times
Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: TUESDAY, July 11, 1995 TAG: 9507110052
SECTION: EDITORIAL PAGE: A-4 EDITION: METRO
SOURCE:
DATELINE: LENGTH: Medium
An obvious next step, considering the Democratic National Committee's shameless huckstering of favors and special access to big-buck contributors of President Clinton's re-election campaign. From the posh catalog, one may buy:
Dinner with the prez, for $100,000. A presidential reception, dinner with Vice President Gore and special policy briefings, for $50,000. A presidential reception, dinner with Gore and ``preferred'' status at the 1996 Democratic National Convention, for $10,000. Invites to social soirees with Hillary Clinton and Tipper Gore, for $1,000.
And - get this - a spot on foreign-trade missions, ``impromptu meetings'' with various administration officials, a daily fax report, plus two events with Clinton and two with Gore, for annual $100,000 contributions.
The selling of foreign-trade missions, in particular, is creative. Why stop at mere photo opportunities when you can offer wealthy business leaders the opportunity to help shape world-trade policies? And doubtless the trade policies will be in the best interests of all American citizens when they're privatized in this manner. Oh, yeah.
The DNC, of course, argues that its goody bag for fat-cat donors is not significantly different from that used by former Presidents Bush, Reagan and other leaders of the Free (joke) World since Dwight Eisenhower, and being used today by Republicans on Capitol Hill.
True. That's why it resonated with so many voters in 1992 when Clinton shouted himself hoarse railing against ``cliques of $100,000 donors'' that can buy access to presidents and other elected leaders that ordinary citizens don't have. Voters know this for what it is: influence peddling, and a betrayal of democracy. Bush would do nothing to end the putrid system of campaign financing, but - passionately croaked Clinton - ``I will!''
Indeed, the '92 Clinton made campaign-finance reform a key issue, promising to take the lead on it if elected. But he's done little more than talk about it, saying he would sign a reform measure similar to the one vetoed by Bush if such a bill reached his desk.
But that wasn't likely, even in the first two years of the Clinton administration when Democrats controlled Congress, without a push by the president. (Congressional Democrats were, in fact, grandstanding when they passed a reform bill in '92. They could posture as high-minded reformists then because they knew then-President Bush would veto the legislation and thus there would be no consequences.) It's no more likely now, with Republicans in charge on the Hill.
But hold on just a darn minute: Didn't Clinton and House Speaker Newt Gingrich (Tweedledum and Tweedledee) shake hands on it? At a public forum in New Hampshire just weeks ago, didn't they ballyhoo a promise to clean up campaign-financing practices and end the sale of influence and access in Washington? Oh, yeah.
With all due respect, Mr. President, it's beginning to look like not a dime's worth of difference between you and the Republicans. And your excuse for the crass sellout (``Republicans did it first'') will do nothing to help us get over the cynicism concerning government that you've lately been scolding us about.
by CNB