【2010.06.9 纽约时报】美国选举：富翁的游戏

月抱琵琶

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/10/opinion/10collins.html
p-Ed ColumnistRise of the Richies        By GAIL COLLINS        Published: June 9, 2010


   
“Career politicians in Sacramento and Washington, D.C., be warned; younow face your worst nightmare!” said Meg Whitman, at her victory speechin California this week.  
     
Tony Cenicola/The New York Times

Gail Collins                           

  


Whitman, as the world now knows, is the former chief executive of eBaywho won the Republican gubernatorial nomination by spending $71 millionof her own money. She has said that she is prepared to spend $150million to win the general election and the right to run a semibankruptstate with an intransigent Legislature.
The people of California may be hoping that if she wins, she’ll justpay off their deficit. As a resident of New York City, which has had abillionaire chief executive for some time, I would like to say: Don’thold your breath.
Meanwhile, Carly Fiorina, a fellow former C.E.O., snagged the party’sSenate nomination by spending several million dollars of her fortune onlast-minute ads. She was running against a well-thought-of formerelected official who wasn’t particularly wealthy and was crushed,crushed, crushed. (Whitman, on the other hand, was running againstanother richie, who simply made the mistake of thinking $25 millionwould be enough to seal the deal.)
As the crowd celebrated the dual victories, while Twitteringmercilessly about Whitman’s cash bar, the gubernatorial nomineeexplained that the worst nightmare for status quo lawmakers was of “twobusinesswomen from the real world who know how to create jobs, balancebudgets and get things done.”
This is not actually the case. For career politicians, the worstnightmare would be a businessperson from the real world with a billiondollars and an open checkbook. Freddy Krueger is Michael Bloomberg.
We have been entertaining ourselves with theories about how thiselection year is going to be all about voter anger. Or Washingtoninsiders. Or health care. Or TARP. But, really, it’s going to be aboutmoney. Gobs of cash falling on campaigns like tar balls on a beach.
Besides the rich “self-funders,” we have loony attack ads frommysterious well-heeled groups with names like Friends of Puppies. (Arecent ad in Alabama attacking a gubernatorial candidate for supportingthe teaching of evolution was financed by the True Republican PAC,whose big donor was actually the state teachers’ union.)
The fear of a billion-dollar Freddy Krueger or Friends of Puppiesterrifies normal elected officials into compulsively piling up campaigndonations to protect them from a big-money tornado. Whenever we try tocome up with a system that will even the playing field, the SupremeCourt calls foul. Arizona has a clean elections law that rewardscandidates who promise not to take money from special interests. Justthis week, the court told Arizona that the state couldn’t distributematching funds under the program because it might violate the FirstAmendment rights of one fringe candidate named Buz who refused to takepart in the system.
Back in the days of the Good John McCain, Congress prohibitedcorporations from running ad campaigns during the election season thatwere aimed at influencing a race. (He was so good, the Good JohnMcCain. Always wandering around New Hampshire talking about campaignfinance reform. The only person who ever made it interesting. Whateverhappened to him?)
In January, the Roberts court, in a burst of creative overreaching,ruled 5 to 4 that corporations have the same free speech rights aspeople and knocked out Good John McCain’s law. Right now, people inCongress are trying to find a fix for that one. They’re focusing ontransparency, which is something people always claim to like.
“If you want to run a nasty negative ad, the public should have theright to know who you really are,” said Chuck Schumer, the Senatesponsor of the painfully named Democracy Is Strengthened by CastingLight on Spending in Elections Act. Under the bill, a theoretical adwould not only say it was paid for by Friends of Puppies but also thatthe top Friends of Puppies donors were BP, Goldman Sachs, A.I.G.,Halliburton and Blackwater.
The bill is scheduled to go to the floor of the House soon, but it hasgotten heavy artillery from the Republican leadership, as well asgroups of all stripes that don’t want to reveal their big donors.
“When someone like Schumer wants to know who’s paying for an ad — let’sbe honest. They’re taking names,” said R. Bruce Josten of the UnitedStates Chamber of Commerce.
Representative Chris Van Hollen of Maryland, one of the House sponsors,expects the bill to pass his chamber with at least scattered Republicansupport. But the Senate is another matter. Schumer says someRepublicans have expressed sympathy for the idea, but no one hasvolunteered to come on board. “All we need is one or two,” he said.
None of the John McCains have been heard from on this one. Maybe they’re in Arizona, communing with Buz.