The McCain New York Times Story
Regarding the New York Times Story, "For McCain, Self-Confidence on Ethics Poses Its Own Risk" I think that Jack Shafer's article at Slate.com hits the nail on the head:
Where there's smoke, there's sometimes fire. That the imperfect Times article doesn't expose a raging blaze isn't sufficient cause for condemning it. The evidence the paper provides more than adequately establishes that McCain remains a better preacher about ethics, standards, appearances, and special interest conflicts than he is a practitioner, something voters should consider before punching the ballot for him.
The McCain story, for all its caveats and innuendo is actually an important story for it reminds us of the corrupting power of money in politics. No one, not even the heroic John McCain, is immune from the corrupting influences of money and power.
Talking Points Memo has a story arguing that Vicki Iseman, the lobbyist the Times cites as being at best a little too friendly with McCain, received little in terms of substantive policy favorable to her clients from her close relationship with the Senator. As the article points out, McCain's advocacy on the part of Iseman's clients was in line with his overarching views in favor of greater deregulation for the telecom industry. "The question naturally arises whether anything is remarkable about this "champion of deregulation" responding to the desires of telecoms and media companies. Was it special attention or typical indulgence?"
But that's just the issue. One almost never finds an instance of out and out bribery in politics anymore. The kind of influence peddling that goes on on Capitol Hill is far more subtle, but no less significant from a public interest standpoint. Here is one of the more important anecdotes form the Times story: "In late 1999, Ms. Iseman asked Mr. McCain’s staff to send a letter to the commission to help Paxson, now Ion Media Networks, on another matter. Mr. Paxson was impatient for F.C.C. approval of a television deal, and Ms. Iseman acknowledged in an e-mail message to The Times that she had sent to Mr. McCain’s staff information for drafting a letter urging a swift decision."
His advocacy on her client's behalf may very well have fit within his own policy preferences, but one has to ask whether he would have drafted such a letter without her prodding. Furthermore, the contents of that letter were shaped by her input as she admits sending "information for drafting a letter" to McCain's office. This doesn't seem that insidious, after all, it's just a letter to the FCC. But it does show hipocrisy on McCain's part. He's supposedly spent the past 10 years fighting against this very kind of influence peddling. Perhaps all those campaign donations don't mean a thing, perhaps all that time spent talking with lobbyists has no effect, but if all that is true then why do these lobbyists do it? Why would they waste their time? Why would companies and other special interests waste their money? Why if it has no effect does it keep on happening?
It is in fact absurd to think that lobbying has no effect, though I don't think Hillary Clinton was fooling herself when she said to a room full of bloggers that lobbyists don't influence her. Contributions don't buy votes, or laws, or anything as clear cut as that. What they do buy is access, and access means an opportunity to shape laws and policies however slightly. Did lobbyists help to sink Hillary's healthcare plan? Absolutely. Such influence is not absolute, nor is it often effective. What it is is constant, pervasive, and directly against the central premises on which our Constitution rests, namely that no interest should have favor over any other. Interest is made to combat interest within such a structure as Publius argues in the Federalist papers. If those interests do not fight on a fair playing field, then one interest will surely win to the detriment of the larger national interest. This is surely what happened when McCain helped Charles Keating to secure deregulation for his Savings and Loan. When that Savings and Loan collapsed due to Keating's overly risky investments that would never have been allowed under the prior regulations, thousands of people lost their savings, and the economy as a whole took a major hit. The question the Times article raises is will McCain let that happen again. He has clearly shown that as with Keating, he is still susceptible to those same old temptations that Publius warned us about from the first.
The McCain story, for all its caveats and innuendo is actually an important story for it reminds us of the corrupting power of money in politics. No one, not even the heroic John McCain, is immune from the corrupting influences of money and power.
Talking Points Memo has a story arguing that Vicki Iseman, the lobbyist the Times cites as being at best a little too friendly with McCain, received little in terms of substantive policy favorable to her clients from her close relationship with the Senator. As the article points out, McCain's advocacy on the part of Iseman's clients was in line with his overarching views in favor of greater deregulation for the telecom industry. "The question naturally arises whether anything is remarkable about this "champion of deregulation" responding to the desires of telecoms and media companies. Was it special attention or typical indulgence?"
But that's just the issue. One almost never finds an instance of out and out bribery in politics anymore. The kind of influence peddling that goes on on Capitol Hill is far more subtle, but no less significant from a public interest standpoint. Here is one of the more important anecdotes form the Times story: "In late 1999, Ms. Iseman asked Mr. McCain’s staff to send a letter to the commission to help Paxson, now Ion Media Networks, on another matter. Mr. Paxson was impatient for F.C.C. approval of a television deal, and Ms. Iseman acknowledged in an e-mail message to The Times that she had sent to Mr. McCain’s staff information for drafting a letter urging a swift decision."
His advocacy on her client's behalf may very well have fit within his own policy preferences, but one has to ask whether he would have drafted such a letter without her prodding. Furthermore, the contents of that letter were shaped by her input as she admits sending "information for drafting a letter" to McCain's office. This doesn't seem that insidious, after all, it's just a letter to the FCC. But it does show hipocrisy on McCain's part. He's supposedly spent the past 10 years fighting against this very kind of influence peddling. Perhaps all those campaign donations don't mean a thing, perhaps all that time spent talking with lobbyists has no effect, but if all that is true then why do these lobbyists do it? Why would they waste their time? Why would companies and other special interests waste their money? Why if it has no effect does it keep on happening?
It is in fact absurd to think that lobbying has no effect, though I don't think Hillary Clinton was fooling herself when she said to a room full of bloggers that lobbyists don't influence her. Contributions don't buy votes, or laws, or anything as clear cut as that. What they do buy is access, and access means an opportunity to shape laws and policies however slightly. Did lobbyists help to sink Hillary's healthcare plan? Absolutely. Such influence is not absolute, nor is it often effective. What it is is constant, pervasive, and directly against the central premises on which our Constitution rests, namely that no interest should have favor over any other. Interest is made to combat interest within such a structure as Publius argues in the Federalist papers. If those interests do not fight on a fair playing field, then one interest will surely win to the detriment of the larger national interest. This is surely what happened when McCain helped Charles Keating to secure deregulation for his Savings and Loan. When that Savings and Loan collapsed due to Keating's overly risky investments that would never have been allowed under the prior regulations, thousands of people lost their savings, and the economy as a whole took a major hit. The question the Times article raises is will McCain let that happen again. He has clearly shown that as with Keating, he is still susceptible to those same old temptations that Publius warned us about from the first.
posted by Tbone at
3:44 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home