from The Hill www.hillnews.com Things are getting really ugly on the Hill now. This is a dangerous time with the vote to make the bill non-severable coming up. (If it's non-severable, that means if the court finds any part of the bill unconstitutional, the whole bill is thrown out.) It seems that some of the McCain-Feingold troop are considering voting for non-severability, a rare provision to attach to a bill. Perhaps one of the weakest arguments I've read comes from Tom Harkin who "cited reluctance to let the Supreme Court write campaign finance law." [quote from article, not from Harkin] This is truly pathetic and I think the concern over what the Court may or may not do is getting a little out of control. Clearly the court is deservedly under a black flag right now, but to use their possible ruling as a reason to vote to make this bill notably irregular is to call into question his motive for being in the Senate. Is this the attitude he takes to every vote? Does he wrangle over how the courts will look upon each bill that comes across his desk? I don't think he does, so what the comment tells us is that he really doesn't want to ban soft money, is enjoying raking in the cash (for his party) at expensive fund-raisers, and doesn't give a damn if it looks corrupt to his constituents. Hopefully the glare of the public light will force these senators to do the right thing, but if not, I think the democratic party should seek to sever them from the ranks. It's okay to raise soft money when it's legal. It' also okay to be very, very good at it. However the whole thing reaks of corporate ownership of the legal system (more than it already does) and to not strike it down when given the opportunity is a cowardly act. As noted in the article on the Kyoto Protocols, we, as Americans, should seek to do things that lead the way (even though in this arena we are by no means a front-runner) because they are hard. It will be hard on the democrats to raise as much money as the republicans if soft money is taken away, but that shouldn't deter them. Perhaps, right now, they fear their ability to connect with their constituents if their corporate cudgel is removed; I don't know. I can only hope something forces them to take this very difficult, but also first, step.
- posted by levinson @ 3/29/2001 08:30:00 AM