American Politics Journal

Cow Patties
by Jeff Koopersmith

March 19, 1997 -- NEW YORK (APJP) -- Smell cow patties?

The Senate blew away a bill sponsored by Republican Arlen Specter (R-PA) and Democrat Ernest Hollings (D-SC) that proposed a constitutional amendment to limit campaign spending and contributions -- and which would effectively overrule a Supreme Court decision that such limits infringe on the right to free speech.

The measure failed to get even a simple majority, with 61 Senators opposed. It would take 67 votes to pass as a constitutional amendment.

If the amendment had passed and then been ratified by the states, Congress would have be allowed to set limits and states and local governments could have done the same.

Surprise, surprise!

Don't get me wrong. I'm opposed to such limits, just as I'm for elected officials who don't see campaign contributions as bribes, gifts from suckers and -- yes, okay -- a few that actually like them and their policies.

But the posturing on this issue is nearly nauseating.

Neither Specter nor Hollings ever thought their bill had a chance, nor did any other Senator who happened to sign on. But now, the 38 voting for passage can go to their home states and tell the voters, "I tried."

Here's the truth: the bill and all the time and money wasted on it -- in committee, by staff and on the floor -- was a phony, a decoy, designed to fool Mr. and Ms. America into thinking that politicians really want to clean up their act.

Honest pols don't see their act as dirty, and dishonest ones will never police themselves.

I hate to say this, but the Senate's loudest opponent of spending limits, Senator Mitch McConnell (R-KY) is one of few upper house mavens that has the guts to admit he likes PAC, soft, and any other money he can get his hands on to help assure his re-election. But even McConnell went too far when he hailed yesterday's vote as "proof limits are unconstitutional."

Of course, this is nonsense. The vote didn't prove anything approaching that. What it did prove is that incumbents are never going to give up the edge that big money gives them against upstart challengers.

And I don't blame them.