|
November 4, 1999 7:00PM
McCONNELL'S MOVE
Senator Mitch McConnell, Republican from Kentucky, today declared victory
in the campaign-finance wars and offered peace terms to the losers.
McConnell noted that the Senate sponsors of campaign-finance bills had
been forced to remove many objectionable provisions to win political
support. "If McCain and Feingold surrendered any further provisions," he
said, "even I could cosponsor the bill because there would be nothing left
but the effective date. McCain-Feingold is synonymous with failure. We
should move on."
McConnell and Senate majority leader Trent Lott explained what they
understood "moving on" to mean: hearings next spring on a truly bipartisan
reform proposal, that of Nebraskans Chuck Hagel and Bob Kerrey
(respectively, a Republican and a Democrat). The Hagel-Kerrey bill departs
in two ways from liberal campaign reform: It would only cap soft money,
not ban it, and it would lift the hard-money contribution limits from
$1,000 to $3000. Many conservatives, and even liberals such as David
Broder, consider the tight limits on hard money a major defect of the
current system-it forces candidates to fill a bathtub with a spoon-and
have expressed interest in this compromise. (George Will, on the other
hand, has taken the Leninist position that the limit should be left alone
until politicians are pinched so hard by them that they get rid of limits
altogether.)
McConnell stressed that he was not endorsing the Hagel-Kerrey compromise
himself. He thinks it should do something about union abuses, such as the
use of forced dues money on politics. He also notes that even a cap on
soft money raises constitutional issues, which is why the bill provides
that the cap would not take effect until the Supreme Court has ruled on
any lawsuits on the question. (This is a craven abdication of the
Congress's own duty to interpret the Constitution, but that's a topic for
another day.) Says McConnell, "I am supremely confident that at least one
such lawsuit would be filed."
CANDOR CONTROL
Finally, some honesty from the anti-gun crowd: In today's New York Times,
Josh Sugarmann, executive director of the Violence Policy Center, admits
1) that his goal is a ban on handguns and 2) that most of the lesser gun
controls being discussed couldn't conceivably achieve much. But not even
Sugarmann wants an honest debate on this proposal in Congress. Instead, he
thinks that Congress should "give the Treasury Department health and
safety authority over the gun industry." He continues, "[A]ny rational
regulator with that authority would ban handguns." A short op-ed, yet how
much it reveals about the anti-gun movement's coercive ambitions, refusal
to concede rationality to its opponents, and undemocratic instincts.
QUOTE UNQUOTE
Mark Steyn in today's National Post, on Ted Kennedy's recent references to
the Stockpile Stewardship Program as the "Stockpile Stewardess Program":
"No doubt his aides were quietly relieved the senator hasn't spoken out on
behalf of the Comprehensive Breast Tan Treaty. Still, we all know where
Ted stands on the issue: He's in favour of arms control and, as a guy
whose arms could use controlling, he knows whereof he speaks."
Updated By:
Ramesh Ponnuru - Senior Editor
John J. Miller - National Political Reporter
Kate Dwyer - Editorial Associate
For a selection of recent Washington Bulletins
click here
If you would like to receive the Washington Bulletin via e-mail, please
send an e-mail message to majordomo@us.net. The first line in the body
of the message should read: "subscribe washingtonbulletin".
In order to ensure that you are not accidentally subscribed, you will
receive a reply message with a confirmation number, to which you must
reply to complete the subscription process.
To unsubscribe leave the subject line blank and have the first line in the body of the message read: "unsubscribe washingtonbulletin". |