B Y J A M E S C A R V I L L E
The Couch Potato's Ball all things considered, I'll look back on 1996 as darn close to a vintage year. In the spring, my book "We're Right, They're Wrong" hit the top of the New York Times bestseller list. In the summer, my precious little Matty started walking and talking. In the fall, the voters turned back the so-called Republican Revolution and reelected a Democratic President for the first time in a generation. I much prefer looking backward at this time of the year than forward. Beyond guessing the Super Bowl winner, I'm not one of those people who gets an itch to make predictions for the New Year. Sometimes I pop off with a few, but the truth is, I get fatalistic when I start gazing into the crystal ball. My daddy died before his rightful time, and I can be a superstitious guy. Better to leave well enough alone. While I'm not going to predict, I will still be happy to advise. This time of year, a lot of people are asking me to offer suggestions on the ins and outs of the quadrennial spectacle known as Inauguration. They want to know what events are worth attending. They want to know how to get tickets to the big-time balls. They want to find out who's going to be where, when. My advice to one and all is the same: don't bother getting worked up over any of it. Inauguration may be a constitutional necessity, but it's a royal pain in the ass. The best place to watch the Inauguration is at home in front of the tube. That's what I did in '92 and I'll probably do it again this year. I don't mean to be a wet blanket — and I don't want to put down all the hard work the Inauguration planners are putting in. But the fact is, it just ain't worth the hassle to visit New Orleans during Mardi Gras and the same thing goes for D.C. during Inauguration. Even if you get invited to the black-tie balls, you still have to cough up serious money for a ticket. (Because everyone's bending over backward to avoid the appearance of impropriety, not even the young, underpaid Clinton-Gore staffers who busted their asses to elect the President go for free.) Out-of-towners can't find a room. The streets are closed. The city is packed. The weather usually sucks. Admittedly, political conventions have many of the same inconveniences. But trust me, a convention is worth experiencing in person. An Inauguration is not. As best as I can figure it, an Inauguration is for rich people to come to town and get their feelings hurt. You can't go anywhere these days without hearing a tragic tale of how so-and-so got slighted. Wall Street Mogul didn't get the right hotel room. Hollywood Big Wig didn't get the right table. It's a constant drumbeat right now. I say, to hell with it. Speaking of constant drumbeats and big money, I've also got a thing or two to say about all this talk of campaign finance reform we're hearing once again. I hate to be so negative in the first week of the new year, but I've just got to tell you: the current system of campaign financing ain't going to be changing anytime soon. High-minded, high-brow people with tweed jackets and leather elbow patches are talking up big ideas, but nothing much will much happen. And please don't mistake this for a prediction. It's a no-brainer. It's not that people aren't pissed enough. No question about it — the '96 Presidential campaign got people worked up enough to demand reform. The problem is, there are surprisingly few solutions. I was recently on a panel with Bill Bradley, a champion of campaign finance reform. I have the utmost respect for Senator Bradley, and I'll be the first to tell you that his scoring average was higher than my IQ. But neither Bill Bradley nor anyone else is coming up with any significant change to the current system that is going to pass constitutional muster. Three major Supreme Court cases have made clear that the Court does not look kindly on limiting the amount of money candidates and parties can spend. In recent years, the Court has thrown out laws that tried to cut down on how much money congressional candidates can spend, how much rich folks like Ross Perot and Steve Forbes can spend on their own campaigns, and how much parties can spend on their candidates. The Court has ruled that most limits on spending are the moral equivalent of curbs on free speech. Personally, I would love it if political campaigns were funded totally out of public funds. It would make my life a whole lot easier. Special interests might even appreciate a system like this — they're probably sick and tired of getting hit up for ever-increasing sums of cash. But full public funding doesn't even have partial public support. For the life of me, I don't understand why the public is so reluctant to support a system that would guarantee that candidates would be judged by the power of their ideas and not their friends' purses. But the reality is that people just don't want more of their tax money being spent on politicians' ads. Then there's the idea of doing away with all so-called "soft money," the huge contributions that businesses and labor organizations give to the parties which can be used only for generic "get out the vote" activities. Soft money is a big loophole, but getting rid of it would hardly make a difference. With constitutional protection, big business and big labor would still have every right to make their voices heard. Perhaps they won't do it through the auspices of the campaigns. Instead, they'll do it more directly-through more of their own "issue" campaigns and television spots. As we start the new year, we ought to resolve to bring a little more reality into our political discussions. We can do some cosmetic surgery on the system — you know, make it look a bit prettier here and there. But short of restocking the Supreme Court, it will be business and labor as usual. Share your thoughts on Inauguration and campaign finance reform in Table Talk. |
