ROANOKE TIMES
Copyright (c) 1996, Roanoke Times
DATE: Monday, January 8, 1996 TAG: 9601100110
SECTION: EDITORIAL PAGE: A-4 EDITION: METRO
ALWAYS thinking about what's best for the American people, that Newt Gingrich. Always first to cut to the core of a problem and come up with the revolutionary solution.
If you were worried, like many Americans, that special-interest fat cats have bought up much of the Congress, and campaign spending by congressional candidates (topping $500 million in 1994) has soared out of control, rest assured. The Speaker of the House is on the case.
For reforming campaign finances, Gingrich has an idea that makes up in audacity what it lacks in merit.
The need for new limits on gifts from special interests' political-action committees? That, says the speaker, ``is simply a nonsensical socialist analysis based on hatred of the free enterprise system.''
The need for campaign-spending limits? ``One of the greatest myths of modern politics is that campaigns are too expensive.'' The political process, he reasons, ``is not overfunded, it's underfunded."
So, says Gingrich, the solution is obvious, except, presumably, to brainless socialists: Remove all hindrances on political contributions.
Unleash the special interests to give more, more, more. Free the fat cats from their tormentors who would restrict the auctioning of legislators.
Now why didn't we think of that?
Virginia's lawmakers did. Our General Assembly is one of the few state legislatures in the country to impose absolutely no caps on gifts to candidates. With a Newt-like eye for political vision and financial convenience, Virginia maintains a sky's-the-limit policy.
And yet, though emulating the Virginia Way, Gingrich's proposal may still disappoint some of his troops. They're a hearty and idealistic bunch, among whom are freshmen legislators who believe they've a mandate to reduce the stench arising from campaign financing.
They have worked hard to build a bipartisan coalition in favor of capping PAC contributions per candidate per election at $1,000 (it's now $5,000). Their reform package would also outlaw so-called soft money - unlimited contributions from wealthy individuals, corporations and others that can be laundered through political parties. They also would ban ``bundling,'' another strategy by special interests to evade existing limits on contributions. And they've pushed for voluntary spending limits for House and Senate candidates.
With the support of such public-minded groups as Common Cause and the League of Women Voters, and millions of outraged citizens, the reformers believe they have a chance of getting this legislation passed.
But they also may have thought Gingrich was on their side, based on previous comments and a claimed agreement between the speaker and President Clinton to reform the system, sealed with a handshake in New Hampshire. Gingrich himself has said: ``Congress is ... increasingly a system of corruption in which money politics is defeating and driving out citizen politics.''
Whether or not the speaker is a revolutionary genius, the rest of us still may reasonably ask him to explain the need for ending campaign-finance reform as we know it.
LENGTH: Medium: 59 linesby CNB