Kenny Boy, Your pants, your pants are falling. Ken Lay, former Enron CEO and Bush’s prime corporate sponsor, is indicted on 11 counts of fraud. Says Lay’s lawyer, “Obviously, Andy [Fastow] and his group were not telling the boss that they were stealing from Enron. That’s as obvious as can be . . . It was done by stealth and deceit and of course, in a company as big as Enron, you have to trust someone and obviously trust was placed in the wrong place.” Ok, then explain why Lay dumped $24 million in Enron stock while telling his employees to buy. Throw the book at him, already. (But, by all means, let him speak his mind first.) Update: Dubya can’t handle the truth.
Category: Campaign Finance
Frontal Assault or Friendly Fire?
The Bush team start prepping their anti-Kerry ads, and, fortunately for the Dems, they’re still living in Fantasyland. “If they run ads about [the Vietnam era], they will probably focus on Kerry’s high-profile opposition to the Vietnam War and comments about U.S. atrocities that could neutralize his record as a decorated veteran.” Um, yeah, ’cause veterans are usually all for atrocities. Still, even amid all the wishful thinking, Dubya’s reps do allow themselves a moment of clarity: “Acknowledging that Bush has received major financial support from corporations, McKinnon said: ‘The issue is hypocrisy in saying you’re going to take on the special interests, not who took the most special interest money. You don’t hear the president in the Oval Office railing against the special interests.'” Well, that’s true, you don’t, but that fact hardly makes for a compelling campaign ad.
Shadiness, Inc.
Tom De Lay’s homegrown PAC, Texans for a Republican Majority, comes under scrutiny for misusing corporate donations. I never would have guessed. In semi-related news, the Senate GOP feels the heat from the soon-to-be-concluded investigation into stolen Dem documents. Lie, cheat, steal…all in a day’s work for today’s Republican Party.
The Party’s Over.
Reformers rejoice as interest groups on the left and right sputter to make sense of the brave new McCain-Feingold world. Everyone seems to agree that McConnell v. FEC is both a surprisingly bold decision and bad news for the Dems in the short term. Well, so be it. With the Supreme Court finally admitting that dollars debase democracy, the door is now open for tougher campaign finance laws in the very near future.
Woohoo!
By a vote of 5-4 (Justice O’Connor the swing vote as expected), the Supreme Court upheld the McCain–Feingold soft-money ban today in McConnell v. FEC. Well, Scalia may call this a “sad day for the freedom of speech,” but I for one think this is great, great news. “Money, like water, will always find an outlet,” as the majority put it, but at least the highest Court in the land has now recognized the corrosive impact of unregulated loot on the political process. This decision will hopefully do much to disentangle the pernicious conflation of speech and money in Buckley v. Valeo, and set the stage for continued meaningful campaign finance reform in the years to come. While McConnell v. FEC doesn’t eliminate the bad taste of Bush v. Gore, it is a huge step in the right direction by this Court.
The Hair of the Dog.
As Dubya continues to fill his coffers to combat the growing threat posed by Howard Dean, George Soros rides to the rescue of the Dems once again. As with Dean’s recent decision, I’m feeling a bit ambivalent about what all this means for campaign finance (particularly at a time when some states are cancelling primaries), but I think most of the time Soros is on the side of the angels, and it is good to have someone to stand against the Montgomery Burnses and Richard Mellon Scaifes of this world.
The Big Mo.
As Dean tries to move on by belatedly apologizing for his confederate flag snafu, he is rewarded with an endorsement from the SEIU (and likely the AFSCME), some of the largest unions in the AFL-CIO. (At this point, that sucking sound you hear is Dick Gephardt’s campaign folding in on itself.) Dean — now indisputably the front-runner, and one who’s starting to flirt with inevitability — has also started weighing whether or not to opt out of public financing. Well, while it’s hard to envision a scenario where Dean (or any other Dem) could remain competitive in the general if they do accept public financing (unless they struck a deal with Dubya, which is unlikely to the extreme), this moment does in some way sadly represent the death knell of the current campaign finance system. Perhaps something for the Court to consider in their McCain-Feingold deliberations.
Split Decision?
As noted yesterday, the Court heard arguments this morning on the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (McCain-Feingold). And, in spite of reformers’ earlier hopes, it seems Chief Justice Rehnquist was predisposed against the law, meaning that the fateful decision is probably in the hands of Justice O’Connor, as per usual. Politically speaking, I’d think this Court would have to uphold reform after thrusting themselves so deeply into the Bush v. Gore fiasco, but I guess we’ll see. (Speaking of which, on a side note, conservative zealot Ted Olsen apparently referred to his friend and fellow Richard Mellon Scaife patron Ken Starr as “Justice Starr” during the proceedings, telling him he’ll “have to wait” for his spot on the bench. Sorry, Ken, not in a million years.)
Judgment Day.
Tomorrow, McCain-Feingold finally gets its day in court. For the plaintiffs (aiming to kill the legislation for Big Money), our old friend Ken Starr. For the government (nominally committed to the bill), Ted Olsen. For the reforms, former Clinton Solicitor General Seth Waxman. All in all, it should be a doozy..if I had my druthers, of course, the Court will not only uphold McCain-Feingold but revisit the “money = protected speech” formulation drawn in Buckley v. Valeo. In terms of constitutional principle, it’s one person, one vote…dollars shouldn’t enter the equation.
Here Comes the Judge.
As McCain-Feingold nears its day in court, advocates and opponents of reform look to Chief Justice Rehnquist as a major swing vote (along with Justice O’Connor). Hmmm…I have to say I don’t have much faith in Rehnquist’s jurisprudence at this point, but perhaps he’ll surprise me.