Public Interest
Mar. 27, 2001
Events Highlight Need for Campaign-Finance Reform
This is not meant to be another apology for Bill Clinton. The sloppiness and appearance of ethical impropriety that marked his last-minute pardon decisions gave more than enough ammunition to his opponents, and even some of his allies, to take one last swipe at him, burnishing the "Slick Willie" image of political deception and amorality that he continues to foster by his own regrettable lapses.
This is not meant to be another apology for Bill Clinton. The sloppiness and appearance of ethical impropriety that marked his last-minute pardon decisions gave more than enough ammunition to his opponents, and even some of his allies, to take one last swipe at him, burnishing the "Slick Willie" image of political deception and amorality that he continues to foster by his own regrettable lapses.
Yet, it is striking that, in the middle of the media fervor and public outrage swirling around the pardons, there has been little discussion of the broader context of these decisions. In fact, Clinton's pardons are emblematic of a much larger problem: the corrupting influence of money in politics. Money buys power in Washington, D.C., a fact not lost on wealthy Clinton donors seeking favors for friends, family and other associates who had run afoul of the law.
What is most distressing, however, about the aftermath of the latest Clinton debacle is not the frenzied media response and disingenuous Republican posturing but the silence regarding the complicity of powerful corporate interests in political decisions more significant than Clinton's pardon of Marc Rich.
Recently, there have been a series of reports detailing the startling consequences of corporate influence on political decision making. Take, for instance, the Los Angeles Times cover story on the shocking collaboration between executives from pharmaceutical giant Warner-Lambert Co. and officials from Clinton's Food and Drug Administration. According to the report, government and industry officials gained streamlined approval for the diabetes drug Rezulin by suppressing clinical data and silencing an FDA medical official. Rezulin was taken off the market last year after being connected to 391 deaths (and generating more than $2.1 billion in sales for Warner Lambert).
Consider the brazen openness with which the credit card companies are rewriting bankruptcy laws. The New York Times noted that sponsors of the proposed bankruptcy reform bill "acknowledge that banks and credit card companies were involved in drafting it." This law will deprive the economically vulnerable, who continue to be targets of aggressive credit card solicitation, of the ability to discharge debts, consigning them to lives of making minimum monthly payments to credit card conglomerates. Because passage of the bill appears to be a done deal, credit card industry representatives are exulting in the fact that their extensive lobbying campaign finally will bear fruit. They expect an estimated 5 percent increase in credit card company profits, or $75 million, in 2002.
The coziness between the Bush administration and the energy industry also is beginning to pay off for energy executives. Just recently, President Bush did an about-face on his campaign promise to regulate carbon dioxide, despite the mountains of scientific evidence that it is a key factor in global warming. And oil and gas producers, who contributed more than $25 million to the Republicans last year, including $1.8 million to Bush's campaign, are inching ever closer to opening up Alaska's Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to drilling, a development that would have devastating environmental consequences for Alaska's fragile ecology.
Unlike the uproar over the Clinton pardons, however, there has been no equivalent outpouring of public opprobrium over the democratically unaccountable public-policy changes being wrought by this corporate-government alliance. Where is the moral outrage?
All of this, including Clinton's pardon fiasco, highlights the need for campaign finance reform. In particular, the McCain-Feingold bill, which is currently being debated in the Senate, would rein in some of the most egregious influence peddling by banning soft-money contributions to political parties. Without removing soft money in this way, politicians will remain beholden to the powerful companies that funnel staggering sums into election campaign coffers. As long as this continues to be the case, presidential pardons will be the least of our worries.
Scott L. Cummings is a community economic development lawyer in Los Angeles.
Columnist
For reprint rights or to order a copy of your photo:
Email
jeremy@reprintpros.com
for prices.
Direct dial: 949-702-5390
Send a letter to the editor:
Email: letters@dailyjournal.com