Time - Man of the Year/Time_Man_of_the_Year_Compact_Publishing_3YX-Disc-1_Compact_Publishing_1993.iso/moy/121492/1214unk.001

Text File | 1993-04-08 | 6KB | 110 lines

                                                                                THE POLITICAL INTEREST, Page 49

The Best Pols Money Can Buy


By Michael Kramer


    Sometimes art gets it just right. In a particularly
delicious scene in The Distinguished Gentleman, the latest
Hollywood film about political corruption, a lobbyist asks the
movie's protagonist his position on sugar-price supports. The
con artist turned Congressman (played by Eddie Murphy) has gone
to Washington to commit legalized larceny, but he doesn't have a
clue about sugar. Which position would prove most profitable? he
wonders. It doesn't matter, Murphy is told. If he favors the
program, the sugar producers will fill his campaign coffers; if
he opposes it, the candy manufacturers will kick in. Similarly,
Murphy is assured, he can make a bundle on either side of the
medical-malpractice issue: doctors' groups and insurance
companies will fund him if he supports limiting claims; the
trial lawyers will be in his debt if he opposes caps. Well,
asks Murphy, "if that's true, how does anything get done?" "It
doesn't," the lobbyist retorts. "That's the beauty of the
system."

    Here, in fiction, and in less than a minute, the gridlock
that has paralyzed Washington is neatly exposed: Congressmen
don't have to chase money with their votes; there's so much
around they can cop all they want no matter what their stance on
a specific issue. "It's not that bad things happen, although
they sometimes do," says Marty Kaplan, The Distinguished
Gentleman's screenwriter. "It's that good things don't happen.
The real story is that Washington is frozen, and a lot of
people are making a killing keeping it that way." Kap lan knows
the territory; during the Carter years, he was Walter Mondale's
chief speechwriter. Having observed the problem at close range,
Kaplan believes his engaging "entertainment" could "draw a
little blood" in an era that has seen MTV and Arsenio help
elect a President. "I'd like to keep the public's anger alive,"
says Kaplan. "This is obviously the time to get serious about
campaign reform, which everyone in Washington claims to want.
Maybe the film can help."

    And maybe Bill Clinton can help too. Campaign reform is one
of the five priorities enunciated by the President-elect
following his victory. "There is a good reason public
confidence in public officials is so low," Clinton has said. "It
ought to be, because of the dominance of special interests over
the political process and especially over the campaign-finance
process. That's why I strongly support campaign-finance
reform." Clinton is concerned as well because of Ross Perot.
"Let's face it," says a Clinton aide, "the 20 million people who
voted for Perot are the swing voters from now on, and they want
reform. The burden's on us to do something real, not just
cosmetic. It's a case of good policy being smart politics."

    During the campaign, Clinton was fairly specific about what
he favors and what he opposes. He is against term limits because
he thinks "unelected staff members in the Congress have too much
influence already." But Clinton knows the growing consensus for
term limits can pressure other reforms, and he has repeatedly
said he favors "strict controls on how much you can spend
running for Congress." He has also endorsed a $1,000 limit on
political-action-committee contributions, the same ceiling as
currently exists for individual contributions. Those Clinton
staff members charged with fleshing out his views hope for
progress within the hallowed 100 days of F.D.R.-style action
promised by the President-elect, but they have already
encountered trouble. "For 12 years," says a Clinton adviser,
"divided government prevented reform, and Democrats and
Republicans piously blamed each other for the deadlock. The
very good reform bill that passed last year made it out of the
Congress only because the Democrats knew the President would
veto it. Now the congressional leadership has indicated they
won't go along with last year's bill because they know Clinton
would sign it."

    Some change is coming nevertheless, although the dream of
public financing appears dead. Congress's incumbents don't want
it because they won't yield the financial advantage they
currently enjoy. But the voluntary caps on campaign spending
that Clinton favors are likely, a reform that seems lame but
could be meaningful if voters retaliate against those
candidates who won't play along. Clinton's $1,000
PAC-contribution ceiling may fail -- another casualty of
Congress's power -- "but we'll get it down somewhat, and maybe
to the $1,000 level if the boss wants to spend some political
capital making a big push for it," says one of Clinton's aides.

    Whatever the outcome of the coming brawl, no reform will be
cost-free. "To get anything," says a Clinton aide, "we're going
to have to agree to some goodies." The most likely trade-off
will involve government-mandated low rates for political
advertising on television. And at the end of the day, the huge
problem of "soft" money will undoubtedly survive. Wealthy donors
and PACs will probably still be able to give large sums to
political parties, which have been brilliant at finding legal
ways to support individual candidates. The bottom line is not
hopeful: unless Clinton really pushes his cause, Washington will
still be a town in which Eddie Murphy's character can thrive.