MISSOURI COMMENTARY: CLINTON'S $600,000 MAN: WHY CAMPAIGN-SPENDING REFORM IS VITAL

The silence emanating from the White House this week says officials believe that reports of a "China connection" are different. Even James Carville, the most combative and vociferous of President Clinton's defenders, has been struck all but dumb. -- New York Times (May 20, 1998)

Many historians claim that one needs at least 50 years of distance to evaluate the events of a given period or the impact of a given person. What will be the historical consensus on the Clinton era when 2050 comes around?

His supporters will cite some domestic accomplishments as hallmarks of the Clinton era: the first balanced budget in a generation, an economy with an unprecedented combination of high employment and low inflation, a euphoric stock market, modest expansion of health care and a concern for environmental issues. The same supporters might also throw in some foreign-policy achievements: the Middle East (presuming there is an agreed to and practiced peace), Northern Ireland, Haiti, Bosnia, NATO expansion (although it remains to be seen if this will be a good idea in the long run) and the North American Free Trade Agreement.

His detractors will point to the mammoth failed Clinton health proposal, the inability to advance "fast track" trade authority the lack of funding for the IMF and (it now seems) the spread of nuclear weapons to states such as India. The detractors will shout loud and hard about the Clinton scandals: Whitewater, Gennifer Flowers, Paula Jones, Monica Lewinsky, Katherine Willey, Web Hubbell, Travelgate, Filegate and the cabinet officers investigated in matters unrelated to Whitewater, such as Bruce Babbit and Henry Cisneros.

I believe that there is one issue -- above all others -- that will tarnish the Clinton legacy: his failure, after eight years in the presidency, to bring about campaign-spending reform. In 1992, Clinton espoused campaign-spending reform as one of his bedrock political beliefs. His administration was not going to be put on "the auction block." Special interests would not be able to buy into his presidency. He allowed that, for that moment in 1992, he would have to play by the old, evil fund-raising rules. He could not indulge in "unilateral political disarmament," but by the 1996 election he wanted all to be spiffy clean.

Soon after he took the oath of office, the first major Clinton promise to be ditched was campaign-spending reform. Some members of Congress told him they preferred the existing dirty rules that helped them get elected. They didn't want a "reform" that might help them to be unelected. Since then, individual senators and House members have danced around with reform proposals. With his fingers crossed, Clinton now supports one of the McCain-Feingold proposal. Watch those fingers.

-- Campaign-spending reform goes to the heart of democracy. The old notion that huge political contributions only got the contributor "a little bit of access" could no longer be uttered with a straight face. The truth is that a $100 or $1,000 contribution would not buy a congressional vote or buy a presidential policy, but $600,000 might purchase the expected result. Benjamin Schwartz, chairman of Loral Space and Communications, gave $600,000 to the Democratic Party in 1996. He was the largest single donor of the campaign. Schwartz didn't give that kind of money simply to be invited to a White House dinner and receive a Christmas card from the Clintons.

For his money, Schwartz wanted an essential change in U.S. policy. He wanted to export Loral satellites to China. He didn't simply want "access." He wanted results. China also wanted results. China wanted Loral's satellites. Both Loral and China wanted the "no" to the sale of satellites previously given by Secretary of State Warren Christopher, Attorney General Janet Reno and the Defense Department changed so that Secretary of Commerce Ron Brown could give his "yes." Loral and China got what they wanted.

Brown was a tireless fund raiser. He was a superstar at "doing favors." he had the charm of Harold Hill. He could out-shmooze Christopher and Reno, who always looked like they had just been elected as the golden-age couple of the National Undertaken Association.

-- Did President Clinton know that the money came from the Chinese government? He says he didn't know. Unless proven to the contrary, he is entitled to that benefit of the doubt on that question. Did he know that Schwartz was his biggest single contributor? How could he not have known? I think it is a given that any politician, from aldermen up to president, knows the name of his biggest contributor and in what business the biggest contributor is engaged. Clinton has spent thousands of hours grubbing around for campaign money. Didn't anyone even tell him, "Mr. President, we are deeply indebted to our good old pal, Bernie Schwartz. He has kicked in a real bundle." The spokespersons for the White House and the DNC say, "No one knew." Common sense says someone high up must have known.

The bag man for the transfer of the Chinese funds was Johnny Chung, who bounced in and out of the White House like a pizza delivery boy. He brought his pals with him to the White House and set up photograph sessions with the president, Mrs. Clinton and Socks the cat. He was pushy but always welcomed because he was the bearer of good news: money, money, and more money. Didn't someone say, "Mr. President, this guy Chung is a pain in the behind. We are being used. There's more to him than meets the eye."

-- Now, let us give the president another benefit of the doubt. Let us assume that in his own mind he didn't link the $600,000 with the decision he made benefiting Loral. Even then, it is totally wrong because all of the elements gives off the odor of impropriety. Even if it is all coincidence, the president or any other politician should not leave himself open to question.

The president and other high officeholders do not seem to understand that when big political money is seemingly linked with big favorable decisions, the American people smell a rat. If you ask Joe Sixpack, "do you see any connection between a $600,000 donation and the favorable decision?" Joe will answer, "It smells to high heaven."

Amongst the many reasons most Americans despise most politicians is the public belief that politicians are up for sale.

If politicians are to even recapture public confidence, they have to cease raising contributions in the $100,000s. Contributions in such enormous amounts are per se inappropriate and inherently suspicious.

-- The Senate Intelligence Committee will open another investigation. That's a bipartisan committee and probably as good a committee as any to do the job. One worry is about the chairman, Richard Shelby (R-Ala.). He is one of the more intellectually challenged members of the U.S. Senate. Thank God it won't be done by Sen. Alphonse D'Amato, or Congressman Dan Burton or independent counsel Ken Starr. All of these are all justifiably discredited. Speaker Newt Gingrich would be a statesman if he kept his nose out of it.

If the Justice Department ever completes its current investigation of shady campaign funds, it is an even money bet that the principal designated culprit will be Ron Brown. Dead men tell no lies. The Senate committee could also use him as scapegoat No. 1.

This is not the first time that foreign governments have indirectly sought to influence American policy. I said "indirectly." American citizens who are friends of certain foreign governments -- for instance, the Czech Republic, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Israel, Poland, South Africa, South Korea and Taiwan -- have, as individuals, contributed significantly to candidates and political parties. But the gargantuan size of the Schwartz donation eliminates any claim he might allege to precedent being on his side. Corporations and unions seek to influence all sorts of policies, domestic and foreign. But, to my knowledge, this is the first time a foreign government has directly intervened in our election process.

Democrats are beginning to speak out. Sen. Joseph R. Biden (D-Del.), the ranking minority member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, says that "the administration's policy switch is serious stuff. Any correlation of quid pro quo should be ferreted out." The GOP is certainly not blameless. It accepted its share of illegal or questionable soft money donations. Last week, the House of Representatives voted 412-6 to prohibit export of missile technology to China and 364-54 to prohibit export of satellites to China.

-- Years ago, the Supreme Court ruled that under our Constitution money talks. It surely does in our politics. Tragically, it's the American way. No other democracy permits such a rancid, money-soaked electoral process. In the 1996 election, both political parties adopted a policy of taking contributions on a no-questions-asked basis. The notion seemed to be that if a particular donation was shown to be hot, the money could be returned. Who's to complain? The conduct of the Democratic and Republican national committees in 1996 was a disgrace to the nation. They served as little more than launderers of hot political money.

-- Coming full circle, where does this leave us in terms of the judgment of history in 2050? If the election scandals of 1996 are fully and credibly exposed in all of their ugliness and if the American people than demand reform, then the Clinton-era fund-raising excesses could be deemed as a turning point in cleansing our political process. At least Clinton and Congress could claim that dirty money was stopped on their watch.

Conversely, if the American people continue to accept campaign sleaze as simply an ongoing and integral part of our political system, then we can be certain that the worst is yet to come. If the money madness of 1996 isn't enough to cause change in our political habits, then be prepared for the elections from 2000 onward to be even more scandalous profiles in political revulsion.

~Tom Eagleton of St. Louis is a former U.S. senator from Missouri and an occasional contributor to the Southeast Missourian's opinion pages.