Unless you're a millionaire, you probably didn't notice that Republican presidential candidate George W. Bush visited Lake Tahoe about ten days ago. Instead of meeting with actual voters, however, Governor Bush went for the money - $700,000 worth, to be exact. Since politics is all about money these days, you could say that the GOP candidate was panning for gold in the Sierra Nevada. But then, they all do it.
According to press reports, Bush attended two major events during his brief visit to our area, a $1,000 per person fund-raiser at the Glenbrook vacation home of wealthy Las Vegas liquor distributor Larry Ruvo, and a $20,000 per couple Republican Party reception. Bush also made a short speech at Sand Harbor State Park, where he posed for the obligatory Lake Tahoe photo-op, as did President Clinton a couple of years ago.
The only ordinary folks who showed up at the lake for the Bush visit were a few Sierra Club protestors and some League to Save Lake Tahoe officials, who were nearly kicked out of the Sand Harbor event before Bush staffers reversed course, apologized and arranged a photo with the candidate.
In his speech, Bush promised that as president he would urge Congress to fully fund federal land and water conservancy projects with a $900 million annual appropriation. Half of that sum would go to state and local conservation efforts, $50 million would be earmarked for state landowner incentive programs and $10 million would be set aside for private stewardship programs. He also objected to President Clinton's "land grab" approach to conservation issues.
I found Bush's newfound interest in keeping Lake Tahoe blue somewhat ironic since his host, Larry Ruvo, is the guy who tried to sneak a bill through the 1999 Nevada Legislature that would have permitted Ruvo to build a large new pier at Glenbrook despite overwhelming opposition from environmental organizations and the majority of residents of that exclusive community. Watch for the same bill next year.
During his Tahoe visit, Bush dodged questions about the proposed permanent nuclear dump site at Yucca Mountain in southern Nevada, referring reporters to an earlier statement in which he said that he wouldn't support any dump site that didn't meet the scientific criteria for health and safety. That didn't sound like a "No" to me, but Republican politicians tried to put a happy face on his carefully worded response.
"We don't believe it will be found to be a scientifically safe site," said Gov. Kenny Guinn, as long as the federal EPA monitors an environmental impact statement being prepared by the Energy Department. Of course, as we all know, the Department will ratify Congress' 1987 political decision to put the toxic dump in Nevada, which has lots of empty space and relatively few voters.
But let's get back to the money, which is dominating American politics as never before. Governor Bush was the poster boy for campaign fund-raising until New Jersey U.S. Senate candidate Jon Corzine, a retired Wall Street investment banker, spent $33 million to win the Democratic Senate nomination in that state last Tuesday. That works out to $140 per vote, which makes our Nevada politicians look like cheapskates. After all, Governor Guinn spent "only" $5 million to get elected two years ago, about $10 per vote.
All of us should be concerned about the obscene amounts of money pouring into election campaigns these days. Respected Washington Post political columnist David Broder noted that on May 24 the Democratic Party held the most lucrative fund-raiser ever, raking in $26.5 million at an outdoor barbecue. That eclipsed the previous record $21.5 million Republican Party gala held last month. Admission to the Democrats' barbecue ranged up to $500,000 per family or organization.
And yet donors to these events claim publicly that they don't want any special favors in return. Oh sure, and we believe in the tooth fairy too. The main reason candidates need so much money is the high cost of television advertising. Much of this advertising is financed by so-called "soft money," which is supposed to pay for basic party-building work such as voter registration and turnout efforts. That isn't the way it really works, however, and both major parties have learned that they can legally dump millions of dollars into "issue ads" as long as they don't use the magic words, "vote for" or "vote against."
In a recent column, Broder proposed closing this legal loophole by making all political advertising that mentions specific candidates ineligible for soft money financing. "This simple step would solve most of the problem without jeopardizing the advocacy rights of any private group," Broder wrote. It would also be compatible with the Supreme Court decision that equates political advertising with free speech.
While Governor Bush and the Republicans went for the money at Lake Tahoe, Democrats are far more creative. Remember the Clinton-Gore campaign's efforts to raise money from Buddhist nuns and Chinese Communists in 1996? Since Attorney General Janet Reno refuses to appoint an independent counsel to investigate these apparently illegal fund-raising abuses, we may never learn the truth about them. Just last week a memo was made public from FBI Director Louis Freeh disputing Vice President Gore's benign accounts of his 1996 fund-raising activities. Freeh said Gore was "a very sophisticated fund-raiser who knew exactly what he was doing."
Which only goes to show that when it comes to politics, money talks!
Guy W. Farmer, a semi-retired journalist and former U.S. diplomat, resides in Carson City.