CREDIBILE REFORM OR JUST A BAD ODOR

The public hates politicians with an intensity never experienced in the history of the country. The blamed endure the bombast of electronic media bomb throwers with the net effect that the American system of government sinks deeper into a sea of cynicism and disrespect. As the confidence of the people declines, so too does the ability of government to function.

In order to begin to restore public confidence, the Senate has ventured to do away with most of the "freebies" surrounding Capitol Hill life. A whole host of perks will now be prohibited: free meals, free golf outings, football tickets, opera tickets, a free bottle of Chardonney at Christmas.

If a Senator gets a free basket of perishable fruit, he can act "ethically" and quickly put it in a taxi and send it to a charity before it spoils. Or he can divvy up the fruit amongst people working in his office building -- one orange per person. Peanuts may be divided by the handful or in cellophane packets approximately a quarter of a pound. Although a gift of a bottle of wine is prohibited, a small 2 oz. bottle (airplane size) of an alcoholic beverage is a permissible gift not to exceed one per week. A birthday cake purchased at a supermarket is "ethical," but a birthday cake purchased at a bakery with customized lettering is "unethical".

Senators Bennett Johnston (D-La) and Mitch McConnell (R-Ky) didn't like the proposed limitations. Johnston complained that he, for example, might never be able to go to another charity opera ball. It was pointed out that he most certainly could -- all he had to do was buy a ticket.

The no-freebie bill is the Spring Training exercise for the central issue of political reform: campaign finance. The Senate and the House have passed substantially differing versions of campaign spending reform and the leaders of both bodies are trying to work out a compromise.

There are two issues that continue to thwart a compromise: the influence of political action committees (PACs) and the use of public revenue in political campaigns.

House members worship PACs. In many instances, an incumbent House member raises half or more of his or her funds from PACs. The money comes in effortlessly, almost automatically. PAC directors gleefully dump their funds on House incumbents because anywhere from 90 to 98 percent of House incumbents seeking re-election are in fact re-elected. For a PAC director reporting to the home office on winners and losers in the election, an incumbent House member is a pretty good investment. Where else can you be 90 percent certain that you've bet on a winner?

With Senate members, whose races cost in the multi-millions, PAC contributions are a much less significant factor. Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-Cal.), for example, has to raise $30,000 per day between now and November to achieve her $10 to $12 million campaign budget. PACs will be just a small factor in her incessant money hustle.

The House wants big PAC donations of $5,000; the Senate would like to reduce PAC influence with a $1,000 limit. Congress will have to bridge this gap.

Public finance of at least part of the costs of Congressional campaigns is the other hot issue. Under existing Supreme Court First Amendment case law, if you are to have any success in limiting campaign expenditures, you have to use the bait of public finance as the means of inducing the federal candidates into "voluntarily" playing the money limitation game. You punish a candidate who refuses to play according to the limitation rules by denying him or her the spending discount on broadcast advertising made available to an opponent willing to abide by the limitations.

Most members of Congress, at least in private, realize that spending limits are necessary and that a portion of the campaign expenses should be publicly financed. However, most members of Congress also realize that the current system of obscene spending overwhelmingly favors the incumbents and that the public at large does not favor any form of public financing of campaigns. The public prefers that candidates suck millions of dollars from fat cats, PACs and special interests rather than draw out a dime of their hard-earned tax money.

That brings us back to what was said at the beginning. When the public has so little faith in politicians and the political process, it's hard to sell credible reform. It's easier to sell the incredibility of continuing the present malodorous system.