- The Washington Times - Monday, March 14, 2005

In 1991, Sen. John McCain, Arizona Republican, was reprimanded by the Senate Ethics Committee for his “poor judgment” in meeting with federal bank regulators who were investigating Arizona businessman Charles Keating, one of his campaign contributors. Ever since, Mr. McCain has been trying to show he is not a hack politician kowtowing to special interests but a man of integrity and principle.

Yet the main principle served by Mr. McCain’s crusade for campaign finance “reform” has been the principle of incumbent protection, the same goal that motivates hack politicians who kowtow to special interests. In the end, it’s hard to see how Mr. McCain’s crusade to remove the corrupting influence of money from politics is any more admirable than the corruption of which he was suspected in the Keating scandal.

Mr. McCain was one of five senators who met with regulators in 1987 and encouraged them to ease up on Mr. Keating’s Lincoln Savings and Loan Association, under scrutiny for risky investment practices. The government ended up bailing out the S&L;’s federally insured depositors two years later at a cost to taxpayers of $3.4 billion, and Mr. Keating served several years in prison for fraud, although his conviction was later reversed because of juror misconduct.

Between 1982 and 1987, Mr. Keating steered $1.4 million in campaign contributions and gifts to the five senators. Mr. McCain had received $112,000 of that, along with nine trips on Mr. Keating’s jets to the Bahamas and elsewhere.

Although the bank regulators later said they felt pressured by the Keating Five’s intervention, the senators insisted they were not trying to exert inappropriate influence. Mr. McCain even said as much during one of the two meetings. “I would not want any special favors for them,” he said, according to notes taken by one regulator. “I do not want any part of our conversation to be improper.”

But when the meetings were publicly exposed, leading to 23 days of congressional hearings, Mr. McCain had an epiphany. “The thing I learned was that it’s not only impropriety that counts,” he said during his 2000 presidential campaign. “It’s the appearance that’s just as important.”

It’s debatable if Mr. McCain really learned that lesson. As Senate Commerce Committee chairman, he received hundreds of thousands of dollars from firms affected by the committee’s work and has repeatedly been criticized for intervening with regulators on behalf of businesses whose employees gave him money, including Paxson Communications and AT&T.;

Nor did Mr. McCain pay close attention to appearances when he set up the Reform Institute, dedicated to curbing the influence of special interest money yet dependent on special interest money to fund its operations. According to the New York Times, Mr. McCain “defended the large donations as a necessary part of advocacy work, and drew a distinction between the progressive agenda of the Reform Institute and political efforts to which campaign finance laws apply.” Unlike them, he said, the institute is “nonpartisan and issue-oriented.”

I’m not sure I understand this distinction. Don’t some politicians have “a progressive agenda”? Aren’t efforts to change government policy “political” by definition?

In any case, the Reform Institute helps keep Mr. McCain in the public eye and burnishes his image as a reformer, thereby enhancing his presidential prospects. The senator seems to be taking advantage of one of those terrible “loopholes” in campaign finance law that allows people to engage in unfettered political speech.

Meanwhile, he is determined to close other people’s loopholes. His odious Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 already prohibits “nonpartisan and issue-oriented groups” from criticizing politicians close to an election, and it may lead to regulation of bloggers and online journalists.

Unsatisfied with this impressive assault on the First Amendment, Mr. McCain wants to ban the so-called 527 groups that raised such a ruckus in the last presidential campaign.

Mr. McCain describes the danger they pose this way: “Some billionaire decides he or she doesn’t like you in office, and they decide to form a 527 and contribute $10 million or $20 million and dive-bomb into your state or district. That should alarm every federally elected member of Congress.” Maybe so, but why should it alarm anyone else?

During the Keating Five scandal, Mr. McCain was suspected of trying to keep himself in office by doing a favor for a campaign donor. Chastened by this experience, he now tries to keep himself and his colleagues in office by silencing potential critics. In Washington, this is considered progress.

Jacob Sullum is a nationally syndicated columnist.

Copyright © 2018 The Washington Times, LLC. Click here for reprint permission.

The Washington Times Comment Policy

The Washington Times welcomes your comments on Spot.im, our third-party provider. Please read our Comment Policy before commenting.


Click to Read More and View Comments

Click to Hide