I don’t take the red-blooded conservative line on campaign finance reform – that it’s a terrible attack on free speech, party politics, apple pie, and so on. In fact, the more hysterical editorials like this one from National Review I read, the less worried I am. What anti-reform conservatives need to understand is that the current system – so beloved of their nemesis Bill Clinton – has led to a profound cynicism about government. People understandably believe – and the legislative process lends credence to the notion – that their representatives are bought and paid for. Not literally, in every case. I don’t buy the idea that every corporate donation corrupts everyone who receives it. But structurally, the corruption is clear, and loaded against ordinary citizens and in favor of unions and corporations. This cannot be good for the polity. I’m not exactly thrilled by the bill. I don’t like the ban on independent advertising in the last 60 days of a campaign. The prospect of more independent or free-lance campaigns funded from dubious sources is equally unlikely to elevate the republic. It could be God’s gift to groups like the NAACP, as this piece from The Hill points out. But I second Mickey Kaus’s belief that change itself is good thing – it disorients settled patterns of corruption; it blocks fixed channels of sleaze; it will make our political parties less like extensions of corporate lobbying budgets; it will make a Denise Rich or a David Geffen less influential in national party politics. It also makes complete political sense for Bush. The unconstitutional parts of the bill will almost certainly be voided by the Court; Bush himself is adept at raising hard-money; and his move to the center will be solidified. He should hold firm, ignore Rush and NRO, and sign a bill if one reaches him.
WEIRDNESS IN BEIJING: “Bush will stay in a hotel, and administration officials plan to follow measures similar to those they used at the Ritz-Carlton Hotel in Shanghai during the president’s trip in October, setting up tents in the hotel rooms to keep paperwork out of the range of cameras and playing country music during sensitive conversations.” – Washington Post today. Tents and country music? What is this – a jamboree?
TYSON IN D.C.: Yes, Mike Tyson is a clearly unhinged individual. And yes, in my view, boxing is simply unwatchable – a barbaric and almost indefensible phenomenon. But it’s a free country; and there’s no good reason why the D.C. city government should attempt to stop an event lots of people clearly enjoy and that the local boxing commission has approved. Besides, as the Washington Post shrewdly points out, Mayor Anthony Williams has a great deal to gain by supporting the brawl. It shores up his cred in the black male electorate, and it may bring badly needed revenue into the city. I’m bullish on D.C. generally these days. The huge increases in defense spending and continuing buoyancy of NIH funding will doubtless spill over in the coming years into a booming Washington economy. And before too long, the Tyson embarrassment will recede from memory.
SLOBO’S FANS: Guess who’s on the committee to defend Slobodan Milosevic? Just that old Ramsey Clark and Harold Pinter. So clarifying, isn’t it?
BOOK CLUB:Bob Kaplan defends undemocratic regimes and his record on the Balkans; you weigh in again.
HE’S BACK! The Germans see another Rambo on the horizon.
LETTERS: A grandmother grapples with Rosie; in defense of Scalia; a pro-choice NRA member writes in; and the trouble with Dick Riordan.
The Dish 