by John M. Curtis
(310) 204-8700

Copyright November 6, 1999
All Rights Reserved.

aking the return of integrity the centerpiece of his campaign, Democratic presidential candidate Bill Bradley said, "We must find a way to get 'soft money' out of presidential campaigns." "Public financing of presidential elections," Bradley insisted, "is the best hope to control the influence of money." Little did anyone know that Bradley earned—since his exit from the U.S. senate in 1996—over 2.7 million dollars for 'speaking engagements' from the HMO and Wall Street money machines. "He’s deeply personally tied to some of the most powerful economic interests in the U.S.," said Charles Lewis, executive director of the Center for Public Integrity, a Washington watchdog organization. For the champion of campaign finance reform, his ties to influential special-interest groups can’t pass unnoticed. Nor can his prodigious ability at blowing smoke.

       Throwing in the towel, former Republican candidate Elizabeth Dole called it quits facing the depressing music: "There’s no way we can compete with an 80 to one shot—George W. Bush has 80 times the campaign war chest. I can’t compete with that." No matter how you cut it, candidates look for convenient excuses to soften their shortcomings. Transforming personal defeats into legitimate campaign issues is a clever way of diverting attention away from hidden agendas, personal failures or even substantive campaign issues. Difficult as it is to swallow, campaign contributions follow candidates whose messages resonate with the needs of the electorate.

       Fair or not, money also follows candidates with high perceptions of electability. When perceptions of electability drop, the electorate doesn’t like writing checks to potential losers. Nor do they prefer tossing away their vote on third-party candidates whose electability is remote. Whining about an uneven playing field doesn’t improve fund-raising or present compelling arguments for changing the system, that is, purging elections from the 'evils' of money. It’s always sour grapes for candidates whose fund-raising is crippled by their own inept personalities or unpopular causes. Like Wall Street, perceptions—not reality—are everything. When polling data indicates that candidates have poor perceptions of electability, fund-raising heads south. Hyping candidates’ electability plays well in the press, but doesn’t change the stubborn polling data. Such is the case with the hobbled campaigns of Bill Bradley and John McCain.

       When fund-raising is a matter of withdrawing funds from your personal savings account, somehow campaign finance reform seems less relevant. You know what, for multimillionaire candidates—like Steve Forbes or Ross Perot—it probably is. Ironically, the wealthiest candidates seem fixated on overhauling the IRS, despite clearly profiting under current tax laws. Strange as it seems, all candidates have different agendas—but all have agendas. Even candidates claiming to be above the fray—like Minnesota Gov. Jesse Ventura—orchestrate their agendas by pandering to their constituents’ expectations. While appearing ingenuous, Ventura’s level of political incorrectness reflects a deliberate strategy to appeal to disenfranchised nonconformists. In reality, Ventura’s strictly catering to focus groups’ demands for radical non-conformity.

       Bolting the Republican party, incendiary presidential candidate Pat Buchanan announced, "I will never return to the Republican party. . . I won’t look back." Claiming that the Republican party lost its backbone, Buchanan’s creating the convenient spin that he’s calling the shots. In reality, he was given the boot. Deviating too far from the focus groups, advocating eccentric beliefs and stepping on peoples’ feet, isn’t the best formula for success in politics or elsewhere. Yet if you listen carefully to Buchanan’s rhetoric, he’s on the verge of winning the election. Though confidence is a good thing, blowing too much smoke can boomerang by tipping your hand and exposing your true agenda. Most people know that Buchanan is a skillful propagandist, capable of cleverly exploiting the media and hyping his book. With Buchanan, all this is expected. But other candidates, whose demeanor seem less controversial, also have disguised agendas neatly camouflaged in fluffy layers of seductive rhetoric.

       "Big ideas are needed to solve big problems," said an ostensibly sincere Bill Bradley, pushing his 65 billion dollar health care plan—promising all Americans enrollment in the federal government’s health and welfare fund. While criticizing the underestimated costs of the program, vice president Al Gore remarked, "It may be a big idea, but it’s not a good idea," underscoring the fact that America’s common health plans are largely driven into unsatisfactory HMOs. Surely Bradley knows that herding uninsured Americans into troubled HMOs won’t improve subscribers’ overall state of health. No, only the health of HMOs stands to benefit. Before spending mercurial budget surpluses, Sen. Bradley would be well advised to study how today’s HMOs line their pockets at the expense of both physicians and patients. Before the treasury opens up its coffers, it must first fix the current broken system.

       Vice president Al Gore is correct to question the Bill Bradley’s 65 billion dollar national health care plan—but not only because it’s a budget buster. No, Bradley has some explaining to do about why he didn’t tell the American people how much he earned from the American Association of Health Plans—the nation’s leading HMO special-interest group. It’s no accident that the man who’s advocating integrity and campaign finance reform must also come clean with how he’s earned a living since leaving the senate in 1996. Paying lip-service to campaign finance reform can’t ignore the influence of special-interest dollars on his irresistible campaign promises. Crusading about integrity and the evils of money first begins at home.

About the Author

John M. Curtis is editor of OnlineColumnist.com. He’s also the director of a West Los Angeles think tank specializing in human behavior, health care and political research and media consultation. He’s a seminar trainer, columnist and author of Dodging The Bullet and Operation Charisma.

©1999-2000 Discobolos Consulting Services, Inc.
(310) 204-8300
All Rights Reserved.