|
 s
George W. Bush a man of his word?
It seems a
strange question to ask of the plain-speaking Texan who has just
blown the whistle on the "axis of evil." But the answer,
at least when it comes to campaign-finance reform, may be a disturbing
one.
If Bush signs
something close to the current version of Shays-Meehan he will be
committing his first bona fide, no-doubt-about-it, can't-be-spun
flip-flop and broken campaign promise.
Asked point-blank
on ABC News's This Week on January 23, 2000 whether he would
veto McCain-Feingold or Shays-Meehan Bush said he would.
Here's part
of the exchange from the show:
GEORGE
F. WILL: I want to see if you agree with those
who say it would be bad for the First Amendment? I know you're not
a lawyer, you say that with some pride, but do you think a president,
and we've got a lot of non-lawyer presidents, has a duty to make
an independent judgment of what is and is not constitutional, and
veto bills that, in his judgment, he thinks are unconstitutional?
GOV. BUSH:
I do.
WILL: In which
case, would you veto the McCain-Feingold bill, or the Shays-Meehan
bill?
BUSH:
That's an interesting question. I — I — yes I would. The
reason why is two — for one, I think it does respe — res
— restrict free speech for individuals. As I understand how
the bill was written, I — I - I think there's been two versions
of it, but as I understand the first version restricted individuals
and/or groups from being able to express their opinion. . . .
Bush goes on
to express his support for a corporate soft-money ban, but Will
brings him back to the question of free speech.
WILL:
We're going to put up on our screen something Clarence Thomas has
said about this. He has said, "There is no constitutionally
significant difference between campaign contributions and expenditures.
Both forms of speech are central to the First Amendment." Do
you agree with that, and would you seek nominees who agree with
that?
BUSH:
Well, I do agree with the concept of the — of the
free speech an — an — and protecting the First Amendment.
I — and I also believe, if what he is saying is we should be
able — we should increase the amount of a — contributions
an individual can give to a campaign.
WILL:
He's not just saying . . .
BUSH:
. . . so long as . . .
WILL:
. . . he's not just saying to increase, but he's saying that there's
something inherently hostile to the First Amendment to limit this
form of participation in politics.
BUSH:
Yeah, I agree with that. But I do think there needs to
be protections such as instant disclosure, so that everybody c —
knows who can give and who's giving to whom. I'm concerned about
laws that prohibit people from participating in the process, and
from individuals being intricately involved in the election of candidates.
This is pretty
unequivocal stuff. Of course, politicians can make casual statements
all the time. But that wasn't the case here.
As it turns
out, Will had given Bush a heads-up that he would be asking about
campaign-finance reform and free speech before the show, so Bush
knew exactly what he was saying and that Will — and conservatives
generally — would like it.
The problem
with the kind of surrender that Bush appears to be about to make
on campaign finance is that it does double damage: It means signing
off on lousy legislation, but it also means going back on his word.
This is exactly
the double whammy that Bush Sr. experienced when he capitulated
on taxes. It wasn't just the effect of the policy that hurt Bush,
but the damage it did to his political character in the mind of
the public.
People want
nothing so much from their politicians as for them simply to say
what they mean and stick by their word. Bush has a well-earned reputation
for this, and an abrupt flip-flop on campaign-finance reform —
an issue real people don't care about — will hardly erase it.
It helps that
the media doesn't care. It gave ample coverage to his supposed change
on carbon emissions last year, but it seems no one will bother to
notice the much starker — and more cynical — reversal
on campaign finance.
But at the
same time Bush will be lionized in the media as moving closer to
John McCain, he will actually be distancing himself from McCain's
root appeal.
The key to
McCain's popularity was never campaign-finance reform, but his reputation
for straight talk. Bush is about to embrace the former, while diminishing
his own reputation for the latter.
Bad call.
|
