Veto It
Bush should dis McCain and say no to Shays-Meehan.

February 14, 2002 12:20 p.m.

o, campaign-finance reform passed the House, putting it on a clear path to becoming law.

This is odd, since I thought that rich special interests had a hammer-lock on Washington and could bribe their way into getting whatever legislative outcome they wanted.

Actually, the problem with Washington, as last night demonstrates, isn't money, but a whole host of deeper maladies, all of which are represented, not banned, by Shays-Meehan.

There is the self-aggrandizement — a bunch of politicians just voted to make life harder for political parties and independent groups (their fundraising and practices will be restricted), and easier for themselves (restrictions on their fundraising will be eased).

There is the self-protection — a bunch of politicians just voted to make it harder for citizens to criticize them (no "issue" ads 60 days before an election).

There is the disconnect with the concerns of ordinary people — no one cares about campaign-finance rules, even after being bombarded with Enron stories for weeks.

There is the self-congratulatory hyperbole — check out John McCain pretending that this bill will suddenly make politics worth practicing again, thanks to his own courage and wisdom, of course.

There is the inconsistency — McCain can accept tens of thousands of dollars from Global Crossing and still be a paragon of political virtue, while if a political party does the same it is corrupt.

There is the pandering to selected elites — this bill was clearly driven more by the New York Times than constituents.

There is the reckless cynicism — the sponsors of this bill know that its restrictions on advertising are unconstitutional, but just figure they will let the courts clean that up later.

There is the governing by press release — Washington wanted to "do something" in the wake of the Enron scandal, even though this bill would have done nothing to prevent the Enron scandal.

All of this is what people hate about politics. But, oddly enough, rather than a "cloud" currently hanging over Washington — as Shays-Meehan supporters have it — its prestige lately has been surging.

That's because of the war on terrorism, which represents an entirely different political dynamic than campaign-finance reform.

The war has featured politicians addressing a real problem, with a real impact on people's lives, in a way that is bold and effective. It has been mostly free of spin and posturing, and has starkly demonstrated why public life really matters.

And all of this happened without campaign-finance reform.

It is too bad the Bush administration seems likely to eschew the politics of courage and honesty, as represented by the war, for the politics of elite pandering and pose, as represented by Shays-Meehan.

The forces that will prompt Bush to sign the bill are all unworthy of a president whose leadership has otherwise been so inspiring.

He will be driven by: 1) inertia — it will be just so much easier to go along with the self-righteous poseurs of campaign-finance reform; 2) cynicism — Bush can raise bundles of hard money himself, so what does he care about the health of political parties, or the First Amendment rights of everyday, politically engaged citizens?

At the moment, the administration is fighting an uphill political battle to not tell the GAO about its energy-task-force meetings. This is an admirable — if, in my mind, mistaken — assertion of political principle.

It would make so much more sense to spend that political capital to preserve the dynamism of the current political system and the First Amendment rights of active citizens by vetoing Shays-Meehan. This would be a "citizenship initiative" truly worthy of the name.

Campaign-finance reformers argue that by signing Shays-Meehan Bush will make himself into a new Theodore Roosevelt. Maybe for the PBS set, for whom courage means doing whatever every journalist in Washington says needs to be done.

But ditching Shays-Meehan would better tap into the most admirable spirit of TR — a bold, energetic move that would leave all the conventional and timid-minded campaign-finance weenies sputtering in disbelief.