Reply #20: And then it got nasty. And from the most Democratic state in the union

[TayTay]

Theater of the absurd
Providence Journal Bulletin (RI), p B.05 06-02-2004
By Philip Terzian

WASHINGTON - EVERYONE'S NERVES were properly shattered by John Kerry's suggestion that he might not accept the Democratic presidential nomination in Boston. He would accept the nomination, to be sure, just not at the Democratic National Convention. Instead, he would deliver a "culmination" address at the Fleet Center, followed by a month of nationwide moneygrubbing before officially "accepting" the nomination -- and federal campaign matching funds, limiting fundraising from individuals.

To listen to the various reactions in the press, you would have thought Kerry had insulted the Founding Fathers. The idea of holding a convention and withholding an acceptance speech was so outrageous, such a startling departure from tradition and protocol, that one TV network threatened to withhold coverage, as well. That was something Kerry and his staff had not anticipated, and so the senator, characteristically, changed his mind.

To my regret, I should add. I had welcomed Kerry's idea because, in the age of caucuses and primaries, national conventions have long ceased to be significant. They are now largely meetings of journalists, not politicians. The last time there was any semblance of drama or uncertainty was in 1976, when Ronald Reagan tried to spoil Gerald Ford's coronation. Vice-presidential candidates are often announced weeks, if not months, in advance, and the conventions are carefully choreographed infomercials. The networks have been steadily scaling back coverage for decades.

Nor, for that matter, is tradition so venerable. Until 1932, presidential nominees traditionally stayed away from the conventions, and were apprised of their selection, sometimes weeks later, by a "notification committee" descending on their residence. This charming relic of the pre-telegraph era was exploded by Franklin Roosevelt, who flew to the Democratic Convention in Chicago (another shocking innovation) and grasped the prize in person.

"I have started out on the tasks that lie ahead," he told the delegates, "by breaking the absurd tradition that the candidate should remain in professed ignorance of what has happened for weeks until he is formally notified of that event many weeks later. . . . You have nominated me, and I know it, and I am here to thank you for the honor!"

But the real story here is not John Kerry's lost "culmination" speech, or the wisdom and caprice of political traditions. The real story is campaign-finance "reform."

The Democrats had deliberately chosen to hold their convention in July so their nominee could accept federal matching funds a full month before President Bush, whose convention takes place around Labor Day. The thinking was that the primary battles would exhaust Democratic resources, and federal funds would arrive in the nick of time. But Kerry has raised more money from individuals than expected, and by putting off accepting the nod at the convention, had sought an extra month to fatten the coffers.

This is precisely the sort of cynical maneuvering that campaign- finance reform was intended to abolish, and the style of hypocrisy its proponents routinely practice. As The Wall Street Journal points out, "Mr. Kerry embraced the rules when they helped him but now wants to ignore them when they don't."

Is anyone surprised? Legislative supporters of the McCain- Feingold Act were singularly adept at deploring the corrupting influence of money in politics -- almost as adept, it would seem, as exploiting the inevitable loopholes in McCain-Feingold. The same Democrats who were shocked by Republican success at grass-roots fundraising now welcome the existence of "527s" -- such as MoveOn.org, etc. -- which are exclusively aimed at defeating George W. Bush, and subsidized by right-thinking billionaires like George Soros.

Instead of complaining about the 527s, of course, Republicans ought to be founding their own. For the truth is that, in a free society, money and politics are indivisible, and to pretend otherwise is irrational. In the marketplace of ideas, it requires cash to transmit a message, or counteract the influence of other peoples' messages. There is nothing inherently wrong with this: A democracy where the government regulates discourse, or the media is the arbiter of political ideas, is no democracy in practice.

Citizens have a right to say what they think, to support or oppose particular candidates and parties, and efforts to limit these rights historically fail. McCain-Feingold "solved" the problems of the post-Watergate reforms, and some future legislation will "solve" the problems of McCain-Feingold. By which time, perhaps, Americans may be free to spend their money as they please. And presidential candidates may accept their nominations any way, anywhere and anytime they choose.

Philip Terzian, The Journal's associate editor, writes a column from Washington.

Providence Journal/Evening Bulletin Jun 2, 2004