A needed probe, or hogwash?

Wednesday, October 22, 1997

A needed probe, or hogwash?

DEMOCRAT When GOP used similar tactics, no investigation
launched

By Wendy Felton

On May 10, the President, along with his vice president and the
first lady, stood in the White House East Room, surrounded by
legions of campaign supporters. The administration had gathered the
group to thank the donors for their monetary contributions to the
President’s reelection campaign and to solicit further funds for
the upcoming elections.

There were no cries for an independent counsel to be appointed.
There were no concerns over federal laws prohibiting solicitation
on federal property. There was no congressional assault on the
attorney general. Did this event take place in President Clinton’s
wildest dreams?

No. The year was 1984, and the occupant of the Oval Office was
Ronald Reagan.

It is inherent in American politics that money must be raised in
order for a candidate to be successful. No one was ever elected to
the White House on their notions and ideas for the country alone —
elections are also won by clever advertising and campaign
savvy.

The shrewdness that wins elections costs money. Politicians are
forced to raise money or to pull it from their own pockets, and
clearly not every candidate has the resources of Michael Huffington
(who still couldn’t achieve the voter mandate to head to
Washington). Instead, they collect their money from a variety of
both individual and corporate donors.

In recent months, the fund-raising techniques of both Mr.
Clinton and Vice President Gore have been called into question by
overzealous Republicans. These political foes of the President have
not only called into question the integrity of the nation’s two
highest officials, but they have accused Attorney General Janet
Reno, of succumbing to the White House’s influence because of her
decision thus far to not appoint an independent counsel to further
investigate the Republicans’ charges.

It is ironic that although Republicans are quick to accuse Ms.
Reno of bowing to political pressure, they quickly dismiss evidence
that Republican presidents have engaged in similar White House
fund-raising, alleging that it is not of the same degree as that
going on in the current administration. If these congressional
combatants are truly interested in making sure that lawmaking is
utterly free of outsiders’ financial influence, why don’t they look
at some of their own ranks?

Donors to the Democratic National Committee have been accused of
buying their way into the White House — that is, using their
donations as a way to guarantee access to the President. Have we
seen direct evidence of this alleged access in the President’s
policy-making? No. But have we seen instances where money curries
favor? Yes.

The tobacco industry is one of the most prolific donors to the
Republican Party. And during the balanced-budget dealings earlier
this year, we saw Rep. Newt Gingrich attempt to add a $50 billion
tax break for those tobacco companies. Are we to believe that
Gingrich, ever the altruistic politician, wanted this tax break so
that the beleaguered tobacco industry could work its way back
towards financial solvency? It’s doubtful.

Furthermore, the assault on the attorney general has taken on
nightmarish proportions. How is Ms. Reno to continue her
investigation when she is repeatedly forced to answer to a
congressional committee? Thus far, she has found no legal
justification for the appointment of an independent counsel. Even
if she had is there any guarantee that the accusations being
bandied about would come to any fruition?

The appointment of Kenneth Starr as independent counsel should
serve as a lesson to all those who claim that an independent
counsel is the way to solve this scandal. For several years he has
taken taxpayer dollars to chase down accusations that so far have
led to no evidence of wrongdoing on the part of the President or
the first lady.

There are also those who claim that Reno is cowed by political
pressure – that is, she will do nothing to incriminate the
President as long as he controls her job. This too is unfounded;
Reno has publicly stated that she has granted control over the
investigation to FBI Director Louis Freeh, who is a frequent and
vocal critic of the Clinton administration. Should Reno decide not
to pursue a promising lead for mere political reasons, Mr. Freeh
would be sure to pick it up.

If the attorney general was so frightened by the prospect of
clashing with the President, would she have publicly chastised the
White House for releasing the videotapes of White House coffees in
what she considered to be a belated fashion? Would she have thrown
over the reins to Mr. Freeh, who obviously has the power to create
havoc for the attorney general and the White House? It’s
doubtful.

What this campaign-finance "scandal" comes down to is political
bullying. The Clinton White House has faced constant attacks from
Republicans, and it will withstand this one as it has withstood the
others. The Republicans have not proven any of their accusations.
They have not even succeeded in sullying the names of Mr. Clinton
and Mr. Gore; in fact, recent opinion polls from Marist College
show the President’s approval ratings are up 8 percent from April,
and the vice president is still the most favored contender for the
White House in 2000.

It is easy to sit back and point fingers. It is simple to accuse
others of wrongdoing. But those who claim to want what’s best for
the American people will enact campaign-finance reform. They will
decide on practical, pragmatic policies for the fund-raising that
is a necessary part of today’s political arena. And they will stop
the political witch hunts that only serve to waste the time and
money of the American people. But in today’s charged political
climate, will these reforms occur? It’s doubtful.