Reprinted from The Washington Times , 5am -- April 24, 1998
The weary speaker's Pussycat Rebellion
by Wesley Pruden
The hapless Republican campaign to turn Congress over to the Democrats continues.
Newt's men are just not ready for prime time. Republicans in the grass roots are increasingly restless, and this is likely to have dire implications for November.
The Democratic "campaign-finance reform" isn't about reforming the financing of campaigns at all, but a scheme to put political campaigns under the control of government bureaucrats, who by nature search for opportunities to suspend as much of the Bill of Rights as they can. The First Amendment is always first on a hit list.
Some of the leaders in the Republican ranks in the House know better, and indeed, for a season treated the proposition with the respect it deserves, which is none. The speaker's cave in the face of a parliamentary procedure forcing a vote may, in the end, be a "Velveeta victory" for the pussycats -- "process," not real cheese. He'll let the pussycats purr with the Democrats in a vote that will fail. It's a frail hope, but one we must fervently pray for.
When a Democrat shouts "heel!" there's something in the Republican psyche that makes him first whimper, then squirm, then snap obediently to heel. Sad, but it's true. Rep. Christopher Shays of Connecticut, the amiable and ambitious Pussycat Rebellion leader who looks to Dick Gephardt for leadership cues, calls the Republican cave "a great day for democracy." He misspoke himself. What he meant to say was, it was "a great day for Democrats."
The speaker and his lieutenants, announcing the Republican cave of the day, said that by reviving this assault on the First Amendment, it was "following the model of listen, learn, help, lead." It was not immediately clear whether the statement was written by someone in Mr. Rogers' Neighborhood or in the chambers of Dick Gephardt.
Some of Mr. Shays' recruits concede there's no particular demand from their constituencies for the Democratic reform. Rep. Zach Wamp -- that's spelled "Wamp," not "Wimp" -- thinks most Americans don't care about campaign reform: "This is still not on the radar screen of the average citizen." Rep. Brian Bilbray of California seems similarly befuddled. "The speaker asked me why I was doing this," he said, "and I said I had no other vehicle." (The turnip truck was making deliveries elsewhere.)
The Democratic leaders are naturally pleased, and why shouldn't they be? "I give great credit to the brave souls, especially on the Republican side, who are signing [the discharge petition]," said Tom Daschle, the leader of Senate Democrats. "It's keeping the issue alive. We can't afford to let this die."
What the Democrats want to keep alive is embodied in the McCain-Feingold bill, named for Sen. John McCain, a Republican, and Sen. Russell Feingold, a Democrat. This is the bill, backed by President Clinton and all 45 Senate Democrats, that any paralegal would recognize as unconstitutional, but of course nobody knows what a federal judge would say about it. This campaign "reform" legislation would suspend the First Amendment by regulating what "advocacy groups" -- meaning groups made up of people like you and me -- could say in the 60 days before the election of members of Congress.
An earlier generation of Americans would have been at the doors of the Senate, with pitchforks, pike poles and a sufficient supply of tar and feathers to accommodate senators willing to propose such brazen repeal of freedom of speech. But for the courageous voice of Sen. Mitch McConnell, the McCain-Feingold caper would have become law.
The new effort in the House, based on a bill written and advanced by freshmen of both parties, would nibble away at the First Amendment from another direction. These worthies want to eliminate so-called "soft money," which goes to party organizations, not individuals, if used for advocacy of issues -- just exactly the loud and rude clanging and banging that Jefferson and the Founding Fathers imagined would accompany a free people making up their minds.
Restrictions on free speech naturally help incumbents, which no doubt lies at the heart of the concerns of some incumbents. The Republicans, who arrived with such fire and determination after the so-called revolution of '94, have settled comfortably amongst the pomp and privilege so carefully arranged by the Democrats in their 40-year control of Congress.
The point of Democratic campaign reform is to make it easier for Democrats to regain control of pomp and privilege. The people would understand this if the Republicans had the courage to say so. The price for cowardice in the face of enemy fire should be a one-way ticket home, and good riddance.
Wesley Pruden is editor in chief of The Times.
Copyright 1998 News World Communications, Inc.
Reprinted with permission of
The Washington Times.
To subscribe to the Washington Times National Weekly Edition, click this icon or call 800-363-9118.
