First section

Section 5 of 10 sections

Last section

Previous

Next

Commentary

Go back to the book index page...

Commentary

5-1

I think the Clintons went forward into the 1992 campaign with the idea that they had much to offer the country. There must have been an undercurrent of doubt about the likely reaction to a knowledge of their past, by both the public, and by a Washington establishment that is highly educated, aware of legal and Constitutional subtleties, and more tolerant of ethical grey areas. But because the Clintons thought they were on sound legal and Constitutional ground in claiming that anything they had done in the past did not rise to the level of an impeachable offense, they probably concluded that as their Administration proceeded, both the Washington establishment and the media would weigh the legal significance and the consequent newsworthiness of any emerging evidence of past wrongdoing against the Constitutional standard for impeachment. It reasonably follows on this theory that while whatever turned up could be politically damaging, ultimately these issues could not ever rise to the level of an impeachment proceeding. In short, the Clintons appear to have believed that President Clinton, fully stipulating everything he had done in his past, was Constitutionally fully qualified to serve as President.

After the Watergate scandal, Congress passed and President Ford signed, a major reform bill for campaign finance, within weeks of President Nixon’s resignation. [13] From Watergate-related investigations it was found that a small group of about 1,200 donors had contributed over $50 million to President Nixon's campaign, including one donation of over $2 million. [14] As part of the Watergate reforms, the Federal Election Commission (FEC) was established to regulate campaigns. Disclosure requirements were established for all federal elections. A system of public financing was established for Presidential campaigns, including partial matching during the primaries and 100% funding after the nominating conventions. Contribution limits were established of $1,000 per individual, and $5,000 for Political Action Committees (PACs). Only individual contributions were allowed for Presidential campaigns. Arguably, the reformed system worked reasonably well for Presidential elections up to as recently as 1992.

In 1976 the Supreme Court decided on First Amendment grounds in Buckley v. Valeo, that while advertising directed specifically to electing a candidate could be regulated, so-called "issue advertising" was protected by the first amendment. The Court also held that wealthy individuals couldn't be prevented from spending any amount of their own money on their own campaign. [15] By the 1980’s the Campaign Finance reform of the 1974 Congress was starting to fall apart. Due to FEC advisory opinions, a new kind of contribution was permitted, so-called "soft money", which could be given directly to political parties, but not to individual campaigns, and for which there was no contribution limit. [16] Charles Lewis and the Center for Public Integrity have studied campaign finance in depth. In The Buying of the President 2000, the most recent of Mr. Lewis' series on campaign finance, he writes: "In 1995-96 the two parties raised $262 million in soft money — three times the 1991-92 total...In 1995-96, twenty-nine organizations spent $135 million to $150 million on ‘issue advocacy’ advertising in the presidential and congressional elections...". [17] The rule for so-called "soft money" was that it was only available for what was termed "party building" activities, such as get-out-the-vote and voter registration drives. Soft money was not to be used directly to support a Presidential campaign. This would violate the spending caps required by law for Presidential campaigns.

By election day 1996, the 1974 campaign finance reforms for Presidential campaigns were in shambles. Although the facts about the Clinton 1996 campaign financing emerged only slowly in 1997, and are still emerging, it is now apparent that the Clinton administration, including President Clinton, engaged in a massive, coordinated plan to raise money that would be used in political advertising for the benefit of the Clinton re-election campaign, circumventing spending limits on Presidential campaigns, and possibly using the White House for illegal fundraising activities. A series of questionable fund-raising activities were undertaken, including the so-called "White House coffees", and such things as overnight stays at the White House for large contributers. Over 1,400 people attended more than 100 White House coffees, and contributed over $26 million to the Democratic Party. [18] Ninty two of these coffees were held after White House legal counsel Abner Mikva's April 27, 1995 memo, issued to the White House staff, including the statements: "Campaign activities of any kind are prohibited in or from Government buildings...This means fundraising events may not be held in the White House; also, no fundraising phone calls or mail may emanate from the White House." [19] Newsweek reported in March 1997 that President Clinton had met with Democratic National Committee (DNC) finance chair Terry McAuliffe during Christmas of 1994, shortly after the disasterous Congressional election. The gist of McAuliffe's argument to Clinton was simple: raise more money, faster, than any previous Presidential candidate, and you will win in 1996. "Nine days later McAuliffe forwarded to the president a memo laying out a busy schedule of breakfasts, lunches and coffees for his key 'supporters.' The president's scribbled reply has already found its way into the annals of political excess. 'Yes, pursue all 3 and promptly,' he wrote. 'And get other names at 100,000 or more, 50,000 or more." [20] The Clinton campaign used a computer database dubbed WhoDB (White House Office Data Base) to track campaign contributors. According to Truman Arnold, DNC finance chair in 1995: "WhoDB helped him ensure that major donors were accorded a fair share of presidential perks, a reward system of Lincoln Bedroom sleepovers, foreign trips and government postings that helped the party hit a D.N.C. fundraising record of $125 million last year." [21]

The White House based fundraising was targeted to raise money for the Democratic Party. However, as Lewis shows in The Buying of the President 2000, the effect of the fundraising was to directly benefit the Clinton campaign: "As [Clinton political advisor] Morris testified, President Clinton was the ‘day-to-day operational director’ of the DNC-sponsored media campaign. He ‘worked over every script, watched each ad, ordered changes in every visual presentation, and decided which ads would run when and where.’" [22]

In short, the 1996 Clinton campaign was run, and financed, from the White House. Regarding Marsha Scott, who developed WhoDB, Time reported in March 1997 : "Of particular interest to congressional investigators is [Scott's] proposal that the White House also set up 'links' with government agencies, so it could obtain 'information/resources' for those early supporters, a plan that sounds very much like trading official favors for contributions." [23] Over 45 potential Senate Governmental Affairs Committee witnesses fled the country or invoked the fifth amendment.

During the 1996 campaign, Ross Perot warned Clinton’s re-election would bring "A Second Watergate". As we have seen, Perot was right in his perception of how serious the Clinton 1996 campaign violations really were. At the time, Mr. Perot was not permitted to participate in the 1996 debates. He had little success in advancing Clinton's fund raising as an issue.

The details of the 1996 Clinton campaign violations emerged steadily, but slowly, during 1997. Even as early as the Election ’96 Edition, the U.S. News and World Report cover story included these words: "...the potential for a scandal-marred second Clinton term is already quite high." That article included two pages on various scandal-related issues, and a heading called "Ethics Watch" highlighting the following sentence: "The allegations and admissions of sleazy campaign financing and funny foreign money still have significant forward momentum, with the Justice Department looking into fund-raising tactics by the Democratic National Committee’s John Huang. On Capitol Hill, Tennessee Republican Sen. Fred Thompson ... is already preparing for hearings on the issue." [24]

Go back to the book index page...

Last section

Previous