WASHINGTON — Having signed campaign-finance reform with the doors closed, President Bush now is spreading the word that this career achievement of Sen. John McCain is just a Beltway belly flop — all splash and little progress.
It is hard to argue with that. The heralded end of unregulated donations by corporations, unions and wealthy individuals, except for $10,000 in state and local walking-around money, isn't exactly a groundbreaker. It returns the law to about what it was in 1905 under Teddy Roosevelt as amended in 1947 under Harry Truman. Chin jutted into the wind, we are boldly moving ahead into the 20th century.
Even Christie Whitman, the embattled administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency and reigning TR-Rockefeller moderate in the Bush Cabinet, pronounces herself "a little bit more of a cynic" than others on the subject of the McCain-Feingold act.
"They'll get their way," she said of politicos looking for funds. "They'll figure out a way to get the money." Indeed, President Bush and his political team already have it figured out.
They far surpassed the Democrats in "hard money" individual donations in the 2000 election. Those gifts not only remain legal but the limit will be doubled to $2,000 when the law takes effect after the November election.
So, it seems both parties will just return to political action committees (PACs) and "bundlers" of small donations from organizations that have a lot of rich members and a common purpose, like trial lawyers.
But if all that is true — and it is — why did the Republican leadership spend so much time and energy trying to kill the McCain-Feingold bill?
Certainly, some see the act as a net loss to political freedom. A side provision putting heavy free-speech restrictions on "independent" advertising that benefits a particular candidate faces a big constitutional test in the Supreme Court from plaintiffs that include the powerful National Rifle Association. That provision, even though affecting only ads late in a campaign, may well fail. But because of a "severability" clause written into the act, the rest of it could become law.
Critics say it will become a "Swiss cheese" political reform. But keep your eye on the cheese, not the holes. Big-money interests are now bankrolling the political process for both parties. This is done quite legally by a process known as "soft money."
The Limburger odor of this process was wafting over the Potomac before anyone had ever heard of the Enron Corp., whose fall was the proximate reason for passage of McCain-Feingold. Whether it was selling the Lincoln Bedroom or buying access to the inner sanctum of energy policy, under both parties soft money has become an effort to corrupt the process. Quid pro quo appearance was in danger of becoming reality. Not only Enron tried to buy a piece of the political rock. Philip Morris and Microsoft, companies confronting grave problems from government agencies and the courts, were among the top 10 soft contributors. The No. 1 contributor was the public employees union, AFSCME, whose stake in the political process is obvious. The alcohol and gambling industries were leading soft-money donors.
It is not particularly shocking that any of these interests would want to buy access, particularly if it is legal. What is shocking is that those who manage the political process engaged in shakedowns of vulnerable organizations and that became a best business practice for both parties.
They have to do it to remain competitive.
The gentle and benign Speaker Dennis Hastert was left broken-hearted by the end of it. He claimed campaign reform was the work of political independents like McCain. It would destroy both parties and harm "the basic tenets of our democracy," said Hastert.
Bush signed it anyway, but you needed a flashlight to see him do it. Having a kiss-and-makeup South Lawn signing ceremony with his old rival, McCain, would have just embarrassed McCain and rubbed salt into Hastert's wounds. So Bush issued a statement making not a single reference to the dangers of big money and politics, the axis of evil for political reformers since Teddy Roosevelt.
Keep an eye on that Teddy. His century-old policies are starting to catch on.
John Hall is the senior Washington correspondent of Media General News Service. E-mail jhall@ media-general.com. Distributed by Scripps Howard News Service, www.shns.com.