Subject: Senator Eagleton speaks out on CAMPAIGN FINANCING......
Date: Tue, 26 May 1998 131517 -0500 (CDT)
From: "Roy L. Beavers" <rbeavers@llion.org>
To: emfguru@hotmail.com
--------------------------------------------------
......."No other democracy permits such a rancid, money-soaked
electoral process."..... Former Senator Tom Eagleton (Dem. Missouri).
Hi everybody:
The main news in the "states" over this past long-weekend Memorial
Day holiday was the unfolding of more -- and more serious -- disclosures
about the _rotten_ political campaign funding system we have in
America....
I know that I have talked about this many times before on these pages ...
and I have tried to make it clear that this rotten political fund-raising
system has direct relevance to the failure of the true facts about EMF
not being given to the public. In the paragraphs below, I quote former
U.S. Senator Tom Eagleton from this mornings edition of the St. Louis
Post-Dispatch. His full editorial is too long to quote all, but what follows
is a presentation of his actual quotes sufficient to provide the "gist"
of his editorial, in his words. [Guru does offer some short comments,
italicized within brackets like this. And I offer a final commentary
after the Eagleton editorial.]
For the benefit of our "foreign" friends, you may recall that then
Senator Eagleton was selected to be the Vice Presidential candidate for
the Democratic Party in 1972. He was to have been the running mate of
then Senator George McGovern, seeking the Presidency. That is ...
until some questions were raised about Eagleton having had consultations
with a psychiatrist. When that information was made public, McGovern
dropped Eagleton from the ticket.
The whole event was a great injustice to a man of outstanding integrity
and a _highly principled_ public servant. As it happens, guru was in
charge of the campaign staff for the Republicans in Virginia in that
election. McGovern was soundly defeated in that campaign. President
Nixon was elected to his second term amid the slowly unfolding "Watergate
scandal" saga.... (After those facts became known, most of us who had
worked in that campaign for Nixon ... were finished...... By and large,
we all left Washington never to return....)
My own personal memory of Senator Eagleton has to do with the fact that
in spite of the role I played in that campaign -- and a number of
subsequent campaigns, usually as a visible champion on behalf of
(Republican) Senator Dole -- Senator Eagleton nevertheless tendered an
appointment to the U.S. Naval Academy to my daughter in 1987. She chose,
instead, to attend the U.S. Air Force Academy (tendered by Senator
Danforth) ... from which she graduated in 1991. But Senator Eagleton's
gesture, nevertheless, has not been forgotten in our family....
His words below are words of experience, wisdom, integrity and political
non-partisanship..... They deserve to be carefully heeded, particularly
by the present generation of political "leaders".....
Cheerio....
Roy Beavers (EMFguru)
rbeavers@llion.org..............http://www.feb.se/EMF-L/EMF-L.html
................................It is better to light a single candle ...
than to curse the darkness...............................................
*************************
...."Campaign finance mars Clinton's record, " by Tom Eagleton (St.
Louis Post Dispatch, May 26, 1998).
/////skip portion////
I believe 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 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" will 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. [!!!... guru] 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 (sic).
Watch those fingers.
Campaign spending reform goes to the heart of democracy. [!!! guru]
The old notion that huge political contributions only got the contributor
"a little bit of access" could [can?] no longer be uttered with a straight
face. The truth is that a $100 or a $1000 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. In addition, Loral made a corporate gift of $1.4
million. Schwartz and his company didn't give that kind of money simply
to be invited to a White House dinner and receive a Christmas card from
the Clinton's.
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. [And he got results!!! guru] 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." [Commerce should be abolished! ... guru] Loral and China got
what they wanted.
//////skip////
Did Clinton know that the money came from the Chinese Government?
He says he didn't know. [If you believe that, I've got a gold mine here in
the Ozarks I'd like to sell you.... guru] Unless proven to the contrary,
he is entitled to the 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 alderman 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 ever 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 Democratic National
Committee say, "No one knew." Common sense says someone high up must have
known. [I submit that the public is entitled to a 'presumption of
knowledge' on the part of "higher ups." And our political contribution
laws should reflect the same..... guru]
The bagman for the transfer of the Chinese funds was Johnny Chung,
who bounced in and out of the White House like a pizza delivery boy.
[Wish I'd said that!!! ... guru] 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.
///////skip/////
The president and other high officeholders do not seem to understand
that when big political money is linked with big favorable decisions, the
American people smell a rat. If you ask Joe Six-Pack, "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 for sale.
If politicians are ever to 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.
///////skip//////
The GOP [Republican Party] is certainly not blameless; it accepted
its share of illegal or questionable soft money donations. Last week the
House of Representatives voted 412 to 6 to prohibit export of missile
technology to China and 364 to 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.
__________________________
....A short guru commentary about EMF to wrap-up this excellent Eagleton
editorial.....
The Clinton people have consequently returned "a few" million dollars
in "hot" contributions -- that's only the "hot" money that has been
identified. ***Keep in in mind that the 'huge' private
industry and "personal" contributions --like the
Bernard Schwartz contributions for Loral (and his company's
contributions), also those from the energy/electrical/telecommunications
industries which funded passage of the 'infamous' 1996 Telecommunications
Act, and which still stand in the way of public truth about EMF -- are not
considered to be "hot" money.***
Those 'huge' contributions, strictly speaking, are legal when "handled" in
a "certain" way (called "soft money") that actually _finesses_ the
system!!! Joe Six-Pack doesn't have the lawyers that the politicians have,
so he really doesn't know how he is being cheated of his democratic
rights....
In my opinion, these 'huge' private and corporate contributions (by
Americans) are an even more 'damning' condemnation of "the system" than
the Chinese contributions -- which are going to get all the media
attention: to deflect the public away from the 'more serious
problem'. The 'real' problem is the General Electrics, Motorolas, A.T &
T.s, etc. who "buy" public policy, not only with their 'huge'
contributions but also with their 'huge' Washington lobbying, legal and
"P.R." staffs as well as with their OWNERSHIP of much of the U.S. media
today -- the likes of CBS and NBC....
In the weeks ahead as this story unfolds, I ask all "regulars" of EMF-L
NOT to lose sight of the connection between our "rancid" campaign laws,
our political leaders who are on the "take," and the problems we are
struggling with here on EMF-L ... in trying to get the facts about EMF to
the public.....
Include this "rancid political system" dimension in your local efforts to
deal with the EMF problems you are encountering in your community!!! This
battle is not just about YOUR breast cancer or YOUR prostate cancer or
the ES YOU are experiencing as a result of your exposure to YOUR computer
or cellular phone, or the cell-towers or the power lines in YOUR
neighborhood...... We are all in this together....
Be sure you tie it all together in YOUR communications, in YOUR group
meetings and in YOUR appearances on TV or over the radio, and perhaps most
of all ... in YOUR meetings with the political establishment.......
Don't get "carried away" with the message (which is going to be delivered
loudly and strongly by the "establishment" media) that this is just a
story about a Chinese attempt to "buy influence" in the U.S. political
process. That's the SMALL story!!! The REAL story is the influence of
General Electric, etc., through their "ownership" of a political system
that (as former Senator Tom Eagleton said above) runs on "money, money,
and more money"......
In the American democracy today, Joe Six-Pack is not at the table
anymore..... He and his kids are living there (in YOUR town) alongside
those power lines without a voice in the process and without any "real"
knowledge of their peril......
Cheerio...... guru
Archive provided courtesy of WaveGuide, http://www.wave-guide.org
Reprinted with permission of Roy Beavers, http://www.feb.se/EMF-L/EMF-L.html