HOME /
chatterbox: Gossip, speculation, and scuttlebutt about politics.
The McCain Mutiny
Timothy NoahPosted Thursday, Jan. 6, 2000, at 5:39 PM ETChatterbox thinks the New York Times is overreacting to the Boston Globe's Jan. 5 scandal story about John McCain and the Federal Communications Commission. Although it attracted little attention when it first broke in Pittsburgh last month (click here to read the Dec. 16 article in the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette), the story landed on Page 1 of the Globe yesterday, and on the front page of the New York Times today. The Washington Post and the Wall Street Journal, more appropriately, put the story on pages A5 and B5, respectively. If Chatterbox were feeling conspiratorial, he might argue that the Times is hyping the story because it previously was hyped in a newspaper its corporate parent happens to own. But that would be precisely the sort of two-plus-two-equals-five reasoning that made the FCC story Page 1 news to begin with. Probably the real reason the Times gave the story big play is that it feels self-conscious about the favorable coverage McCain's candidacy has been getting from the media in general.
In case you missed the Globe story, or Ted Koppel's uncharacteristically clumsy interrogation of McCain last night on Nightline, or the newspaper follow-ups today, here's what we know: In November, and again in December, McCain, in his capacity as chairman of the Senate Commerce committee, wrote testy letters to the FCC demanding swift action on Paxson Communications' proposed acquisition of a Pittsburgh TV station. (The Times reprinted the December letter; to read it, click here) The deal had been held up for more than two years, even though, as the Globe noted in passing, "the FCC has never turned down a local market license transfer." (Italics Chatterbox's.) The only significant complication in the case was that the transfer involved a public TV station that Paxson wanted to convert to commercial use; apparently, such conversions are rare. But this was the second of two PBS affiliates in Pittsburgh. How many public TV stations does Pittsburgh need? Shortly after McCain prodded the FCC a second time, the agency approved the acquisition, which the (somewhat liberal) editorial page of the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette
called "long overdue."
The reason you're hearing about this at all is that Paxson executives have contributed more than $20,000 to McCain's presidential campaign, and Paxson has lent McCain its corporate jet four times (though campaign law requires McCain to reimburse Paxson the price of a first-class ticket, that doesn't really cover the cost). Thus the implied twin themes of the Globe and Times pieces: 1) Having been nicked a decade ago by the Keating Five scandal, McCain still doesn't understand that legislators should refrain from pressuring regulatory agencies to serve the interests of their campaign contributors; and 2) McCain's sermons about money corrupting politics are hypocritical, because he's just as corrupt as everyone else.
Based on what we know so far, 1) is a bum rap. As McCain has stated over and over in his defense, he never told the FCC to approve the transfer; he just asked it to stop dithering and make a decision. As he wrote in the December letter, "my purpose is not to suggest in any way how you should vote--merely that you vote." This is absolutely what U.S. taxpayers pay McCain, as chairman of a Senate committee that oversees the FCC, to do. According to FCC chairman William E. Kennard's reply, McCain's query was "highly unusual," and threatened to harm "the due process rights of the parties." But anyone even vaguely familiar with the way the FCC works knows that it's drowning in "due process." Probably a more honest reply would have been: Look, we're not supposed to say so, but one of the ways we do policy at the FCC is through delay. When you interfere with our dithering, you're forcing us to change policy. Get off my back. But that wouldn't have been a good answer, either; in most instances, bureaucratic delay is not the best way to make policy. Did McCain want the Paxson transfer to go through? Yes, probably. But if the inexorable logic of making a decision was that the FCC would approve the transfer, that's hardly McCain's fault. (Oddly, both the Times and the Globe make only glancing mention of a separate instance in which McCain complained to the FCC that it was applying too strict a standard of review to a deal involving Ameritech, whose chief was raising money for McCain. This sounds like much more of a "Keating," but one would have to know more facts.)
On to 2): Is McCain a hypocrite? After the story broke, McCain said, "The system corrupts all of us." This would argue for "no." On the other hand, McCain doesn't carry his commitment to frankness so far as to admit that of course he gave Paxson's case more attention than he would that of someone who didn't contribute money to his campaign. According to the Times story, McCain has
often forwarded complaints from constituents and others from outside Arizona without taking any position, following the practice of most lawmakers. Many of those were not contributors. ... But in the vast majority of those particular regulatory matters where Mr. McCain himself sent a letter, the interested parties had contributed to his presidential or Senate campaigns.
According to the Post, Paxson's lobbyist on the matter, Lanny Davis (formerly a legal flak catcher for the Clinton White House), got Democratic Reps. Steny Hoyer, Tom Udall, and Ron Klink to go one step further than McCain and actually urge the FCC to approve the sale. McCain surely deserves some credit for not doing that. The more important point, though, is that if McCain's campaign-finance bill were passed, the pressures that compel McCain, Hoyer, et al., to be more helpful to some folks than they are to others would (one hopes) be reduced. If this makes McCain a hypocrite, so are the other two major presidential candidates who are serious about campaign-finance reform. The other major candidate, George W. Bush--who's already swatted McCain a couple of times about the FCC matter--is entirely free of this taint. But that's just another way of saying Bush would do nothing to curb the big-money influence on politics.
E-mail Timothy Noah at .
Timothy Noah is a senior writer at Slate. Highlights from the Fray:
Tim,
Thanks for the item, but I don't buy it.
1. Your arg #1: McCain was just asking for a decision, not for a particular decision. But he was asking at the clear behest of a contributor, who wanted a decision because it knew such a decision would be in its favor. It may well be deplorable that FCC policy is made thru procrastination rather than explicitly--but that's neither here nor there. Unless McCain is known to have been a passionate campaigner against FCC procrastination in the abstract--was he?-- his letter in this case was clearly motivated by a desire to help a contributor achieve a desired result.
2. Your arg #2: McCain isn't a hypocrite because he admits "The system corrupts us all." Well, you're right that if anybody who backs reform while continuing to live in the world as it is gets branded a hypocrite, there will be v-few reformers. "I'll stop when we all stop" is a perfectly reasonable position. However, McCain's "I too am corrupt" line is really part of his more general rhetorical device of criticizing himself in some stagy way that is in fact not intended to be believed but rather to elicit an admiring response/reaction of "Oh, no, John...don't be so hard on yourself! Golly, you're so honest and humble!" (His talk of shame at succumbing under torture in Vietnam is the extreme example. Even if he believes it, which he may well, he knows no one else on earth will hold it against him so his public discussion of it is surely calculated.) In this case, as you point out, he denies all the specifics of guilt/responsibility while accepting the burden in some ethereal sense that cries out for cheap absolution.
--Michael Kinsley
(To reply, click here.)
Mike,
1. I don't dispute that McCain probably wanted to help Paxson, in part because it was a contributor; I think I said so in the item. But it's quite legitimate for a member of Congress to tell the FCC to stop dithering. It happens all the time, and not just with McCain. Quite apart from intent, if all McCain told the FCC was to make a decision, I have no problem with that. (The Ameritech case, as I point out in the item, seems a bit fishier, because in that case it sounds like McCain was telling the FCC how to decide; but for some weird reason the NYT and Globe chose not to tell us much about that.)
McCain really does rail against FCC inefficiency (and other forms of government inefficiency); it's a major theme in his campaign; and surely procrastination is a subset of inefficiency.
2. I think we mostly agree about this. I mean to equivocate on the "is he a hypocrite?" point; on the one hand, I like his saying "I too am corrupt" but at the same time I don't think he's willing to fess up to how corrupt he is (even though he did the right thing in telling the FCC to hurry up, as the NYT demonstrates he usually only gets involved personally when a fundraiser is involved).
I agree that McCain milks the "I too am corrupt" line to provoke disagreement, but find this a refreshing departure from the usual forms of manipulation.
--Timothy Noah
(To reply, click here.)
Tim,
If McCain really has made an issue of procrastination at the FCC--or procrastination in gov't as a whole, tho not (I think) general inefficiency in gov't as a whole--in other situations, that's a major mitigating factor. But it basically does come down to a question of motivation. How likely is it that he would have acted in this way for someone who wasn't a contributor? (Or a friend or other connection--but if you don't happen to be a senator's friend, your only alternative if you want him to write a letter to the FCC for you is to be a contributor) If he is using his office to do something that is of financial value $$$$$ to someone who gave him $$$ (a large but lesser amount), and he wouldn't do it for someone who didn't give him $$$ (or rather: he might do it for the random citizen, especially a constituent, and he might not do it for a contributor, but the chance of him doing it is much larger for a contributor than a non-contributor--so that it's worth investing $$$ in even an increased percentage chance of getting $$$$$), that's corrupt. Not illegal or anything, probably (tho not only is the scandal what's legal blah blah blah but the line between legal and illegal is arbitrary and barely visible). But corrupt.
An interesting question is: why would he do it? Not only is McCain clearly a man of basic integrity, but he is a man who (a) has an enormous emotional stake in his own sense of integrity and (b) as a practical matter, is running for president on the integrity ticket--so even gray-area behavior seems worth avoiding. I don't have an answer (does Chatterbox? would make a good item). But could it have something to do with the very vanity of integrity? IE: I am a man of integrity, I did this, therefore it is not inconsistent with my integrity...? Or is it a matter of this being so run-of-the-mill that senators don't even realize they're doing it? (A million years ago, John Connolly's defense on charges of accepting a $10,000 bribe from the Milk lobby was, Why would a man as rich as John Connolly corrupt himself for a mere $10,000? The answer was that the $10,000 was just a run-of-the-mill payment, and $10,000 here and there adds up to...I'll spare you the Everett Dirksen. But McCain is no John Connolly. He's not entitled to an "I'm so corrupt I didn't even notice it" defense, even if he wanted it. So???)
--Michael Kinsley
(To reply, click here.)
(1/7)
Tim,
I think you're exactly right on McCain. His release of all those letters proves that he was willing to pester the FCC at the behest of contributors and non-contributors alike.
Kinsley is accurate, but cynical, about McCain's garish sense of honor. My sense is that the anguish about the war criminal confession and the Keating Five is real (after all, the guy did attempt suicide twice in prison when he was being pressured for the confession and knew he was about to crack)--and that the absence of anguish in this case is also real.
There are other things to be concerned about with McCain--his flyboy carelessness (and laziness about domestic policy)--but I suspect this is a case of the press overreacting to all the good coverage McCain has received.
Anyway, cheers.
--Joe Klein
(To reply, click here.)
Joe,
Thanks for your support. I must admit that the latest batch of letters has me feeling less certain, because in these McCain does seem not just to be saying "hurry up" but to be taking sides. I may do a follow-up of some sort, after I've sorted out my thinking.
--Tim Noah
(To reply, click here.)
I wasn't aware that he was taking sides in the subsequent letters-have to sort out my thinking as well. But, as a general principle, my reflexive reaction is against the puritanism of the press in these cases, especially those that are on the margin. I get especially wrought up when we don't put these things in proportion: McCain's letters, even if he steps over the line occasionally, are chicken-feed compared to the fact that Dwayne Andreas of Archer-Daniels-Midland can spray gazillions around and get real action--ethanol subsidies--in return. (By the way, the Chinese contributions to the DNC in 1996 were chicken-feed compared to Andreas too).
--Joe Klein
(To reply, click here.)
(1/10)
McCain is right that politics is awash in such behavior. Yet, I fault him for not being even more blunt. What he should say is this:
Of course people give my campaigns money all the time with the expectation that I will do something for them. Of course I do things for them if they will not break the government's bank or violate seem deeply held principle of mine or my constituents. How else do you expect me to raise the money necessary to run for office?
If McCain really had a set of stones he would also say:
I will give you lists of all my donors and all of my constituent letters and I challenge all of my opponents to do the same. Evaluate us all on who we do work for and how much we charge.
One final point. Although I have no quarrel with the idea that an unspoken understanding can constitute a quid pro quo, the rankest hypocrisy in this area belongs to the media itself. Newspapers and networks are similarly awash in money. Yet, they continually ask us to believe that it makes no difference in their own reporting. So, for example, the fact that the Times reports on the Comdex show has nothing to do with the fact that electronics manufacturers and retailers buy all that ad space?
--Pat Diamond
(To reply, click here.)
while i like mccain and his campaign reform thoughts, and also found his letter to be "pure" on its face, i'm reminded of when i worked for the department of the interior after graduation from college in 1974. generally things moved pretty slowly around our office, as i worked with a bunch of tired old bureaucrats. however, when a letter from a congressman or senator came in, it was given special attention, and one only had to read between the lines to understand the intent. bureaucrats jump for senators; it's as simple as that. that's one of the few things i remember from those days, along with the fact that my responsive letter to some senator went through 13 people before the ill-fated stanley k hathaway signed off on it. that was a glimpse of bureaucracy in action, which made me rush back to the real world of minneapolis.
--bob spikins
(To reply, click here.)
What would happen if there were absolutely no campaign contributions? Would people stop trying to buy favorable action from various parts of government? Given the vast powers and discretion of it's various parts, I very much doubt it. However, the money would go to different people, people less in the public eye: lawyers, consultants, public relations people. And rather than campaign contributions, it would be things like employment and favors to people close to the candidate either presently or in the past (say, a legislative assistant becomes head of the "______ Institute"). Like today but more so: More creative, more complicated, more involved.
No doubt that would be boon to the alumni funds of the schools that train "symbolic manipulators." But I don't think it would give us any better government.
--Roger Sweeny
(To reply, click here.)
(1/11)
What did you think of this article?
Join The Fray: Our Reader Discussion Forum
SPONSORED CONTENT
PRINT
DISCUSS
E-MAIL
RSS
RECOMMEND...
Facebook
MySpace
Mixx
Digg
Reddit
del.icio.us
Furl
Ma.gnolia
Sphere
StumbleUpon
The Tea Party Protesters Are Getting Smarter
Lithwick: Khalid Sheikh Mohammed's Trial Is a Lousy Place To Examine the Legality of Torture
Who Is Mrs. Cohen From Hadera, and Should Israelis Care Where She Puts Her Money?
What Wired, Esquire, and Hooters Magazines Think You Should Give for Christmas
Save the Planet. Eat More Brie.
How Easy Is It To Hike Into Iran Accidentally?
Highlights from the Fray:
Tim,
Thanks for the item, but I don't buy it.
1. Your arg #1: McCain was just asking for a decision, not for a particular decision. But he was asking at the clear behest of a contributor, who wanted a decision because it knew such a decision would be in its favor. It may well be deplorable that FCC policy is made thru procrastination rather than explicitly--but that's neither here nor there. Unless McCain is known to have been a passionate campaigner against FCC procrastination in the abstract--was he?-- his letter in this case was clearly motivated by a desire to help a contributor achieve a desired result.
2. Your arg #2: McCain isn't a hypocrite because he admits "The system corrupts us all." Well, you're right that if anybody who backs reform while continuing to live in the world as it is gets branded a hypocrite, there will be v-few reformers. "I'll stop when we all stop" is a perfectly reasonable position. However, McCain's "I too am corrupt" line is really part of his more general rhetorical device of criticizing himself in some stagy way that is in fact not intended to be believed but rather to elicit an admiring response/reaction of "Oh, no, John...don't be so hard on yourself! Golly, you're so honest and humble!" (His talk of shame at succumbing under torture in Vietnam is the extreme example. Even if he believes it, which he may well, he knows no one else on earth will hold it against him so his public discussion of it is surely calculated.) In this case, as you point out, he denies all the specifics of guilt/responsibility while accepting the burden in some ethereal sense that cries out for cheap absolution.
--Michael Kinsley
(To reply, click here.)
Mike,
1. I don't dispute that McCain probably wanted to help Paxson, in part because it was a contributor; I think I said so in the item. But it's quite legitimate for a member of Congress to tell the FCC to stop dithering. It happens all the time, and not just with McCain. Quite apart from intent, if all McCain told the FCC was to make a decision, I have no problem with that. (The Ameritech case, as I point out in the item, seems a bit fishier, because in that case it sounds like McCain was telling the FCC how to decide; but for some weird reason the NYT and Globe chose not to tell us much about that.)
McCain really does rail against FCC inefficiency (and other forms of government inefficiency); it's a major theme in his campaign; and surely procrastination is a subset of inefficiency.
2. I think we mostly agree about this. I mean to equivocate on the "is he a hypocrite?" point; on the one hand, I like his saying "I too am corrupt" but at the same time I don't think he's willing to fess up to how corrupt he is (even though he did the right thing in telling the FCC to hurry up, as the NYT demonstrates he usually only gets involved personally when a fundraiser is involved).
I agree that McCain milks the "I too am corrupt" line to provoke disagreement, but find this a refreshing departure from the usual forms of manipulation.
--Timothy Noah
(To reply, click here.)
Tim,
If McCain really has made an issue of procrastination at the FCC--or procrastination in gov't as a whole, tho not (I think) general inefficiency in gov't as a whole--in other situations, that's a major mitigating factor. But it basically does come down to a question of motivation. How likely is it that he would have acted in this way for someone who wasn't a contributor? (Or a friend or other connection--but if you don't happen to be a senator's friend, your only alternative if you want him to write a letter to the FCC for you is to be a contributor) If he is using his office to do something that is of financial value $$$$$ to someone who gave him $$$ (a large but lesser amount), and he wouldn't do it for someone who didn't give him $$$ (or rather: he might do it for the random citizen, especially a constituent, and he might not do it for a contributor, but the chance of him doing it is much larger for a contributor than a non-contributor--so that it's worth investing $$$ in even an increased percentage chance of getting $$$$$), that's corrupt. Not illegal or anything, probably (tho not only is the scandal what's legal blah blah blah but the line between legal and illegal is arbitrary and barely visible). But corrupt.
An interesting question is: why would he do it? Not only is McCain clearly a man of basic integrity, but he is a man who (a) has an enormous emotional stake in his own sense of integrity and (b) as a practical matter, is running for president on the integrity ticket--so even gray-area behavior seems worth avoiding. I don't have an answer (does Chatterbox? would make a good item). But could it have something to do with the very vanity of integrity? IE: I am a man of integrity, I did this, therefore it is not inconsistent with my integrity...? Or is it a matter of this being so run-of-the-mill that senators don't even realize they're doing it? (A million years ago, John Connolly's defense on charges of accepting a $10,000 bribe from the Milk lobby was, Why would a man as rich as John Connolly corrupt himself for a mere $10,000? The answer was that the $10,000 was just a run-of-the-mill payment, and $10,000 here and there adds up to...I'll spare you the Everett Dirksen. But McCain is no John Connolly. He's not entitled to an "I'm so corrupt I didn't even notice it" defense, even if he wanted it. So???)
--Michael Kinsley
(To reply, click here.)
(1/7)
Tim,
I think you're exactly right on McCain. His release of all those letters proves that he was willing to pester the FCC at the behest of contributors and non-contributors alike.
Kinsley is accurate, but cynical, about McCain's garish sense of honor. My sense is that the anguish about the war criminal confession and the Keating Five is real (after all, the guy did attempt suicide twice in prison when he was being pressured for the confession and knew he was about to crack)--and that the absence of anguish in this case is also real.
There are other things to be concerned about with McCain--his flyboy carelessness (and laziness about domestic policy)--but I suspect this is a case of the press overreacting to all the good coverage McCain has received.
Anyway, cheers.
--Joe Klein
(To reply, click here.)
Joe,
Thanks for your support. I must admit that the latest batch of letters has me feeling less certain, because in these McCain does seem not just to be saying "hurry up" but to be taking sides. I may do a follow-up of some sort, after I've sorted out my thinking.
--Tim Noah
(To reply, click here.)
I wasn't aware that he was taking sides in the subsequent letters-have to sort out my thinking as well. But, as a general principle, my reflexive reaction is against the puritanism of the press in these cases, especially those that are on the margin. I get especially wrought up when we don't put these things in proportion: McCain's letters, even if he steps over the line occasionally, are chicken-feed compared to the fact that Dwayne Andreas of Archer-Daniels-Midland can spray gazillions around and get real action--ethanol subsidies--in return. (By the way, the Chinese contributions to the DNC in 1996 were chicken-feed compared to Andreas too).
--Joe Klein
(To reply, click here.)
(1/10)
McCain is right that politics is awash in such behavior. Yet, I fault him for not being even more blunt. What he should say is this:
If McCain really had a set of stones he would also say:
One final point. Although I have no quarrel with the idea that an unspoken understanding can constitute a quid pro quo, the rankest hypocrisy in this area belongs to the media itself. Newspapers and networks are similarly awash in money. Yet, they continually ask us to believe that it makes no difference in their own reporting. So, for example, the fact that the Times reports on the Comdex show has nothing to do with the fact that electronics manufacturers and retailers buy all that ad space?
--Pat Diamond
(To reply, click here.)
while i like mccain and his campaign reform thoughts, and also found his letter to be "pure" on its face, i'm reminded of when i worked for the department of the interior after graduation from college in 1974. generally things moved pretty slowly around our office, as i worked with a bunch of tired old bureaucrats. however, when a letter from a congressman or senator came in, it was given special attention, and one only had to read between the lines to understand the intent. bureaucrats jump for senators; it's as simple as that. that's one of the few things i remember from those days, along with the fact that my responsive letter to some senator went through 13 people before the ill-fated stanley k hathaway signed off on it. that was a glimpse of bureaucracy in action, which made me rush back to the real world of minneapolis.
--bob spikins
(To reply, click here.)
What would happen if there were absolutely no campaign contributions? Would people stop trying to buy favorable action from various parts of government? Given the vast powers and discretion of it's various parts, I very much doubt it. However, the money would go to different people, people less in the public eye: lawyers, consultants, public relations people. And rather than campaign contributions, it would be things like employment and favors to people close to the candidate either presently or in the past (say, a legislative assistant becomes head of the "______ Institute"). Like today but more so: More creative, more complicated, more involved.
No doubt that would be boon to the alumni funds of the schools that train "symbolic manipulators." But I don't think it would give us any better government.
--Roger Sweeny
(To reply, click here.)
(1/11)