The two main parties in the United States election campaigns may have raised half a billion dollars - and most of this illegally. This is according to the independent organisation, Common Cause, whose chairman emeritus is the former Watergate prosecutor, Archibald Cox. Where I write this, in New York, Common Cause has reported that the parties have been raising double the amount of soft money that they raised in the 1996 elections.
Soft money is the major loophole in the laws governing campaign finance, for it permits wealthy individuals and corporations to make unlimited contributions to issue campaigns, that is campaigns that don't explicitly advocate a vote for a particular candidate but may extol particular candidates and excoriate others. This practice was notoriously abused by the Clinton-Gore campaign in 1996 and was the subject of four special investigations by the Attorney General's office. The special investigators on each of the four occasions recommended the appointment of a special prosecutor to investigate further what went on and, in particular, Al Gore's involvement, but Janet Reno, Clinton's Attorney General, did not act.
The point of campaign finance legislation, which began in 1907, has been to reduce the influence of corporate America on the political life of the United States. Reform of campaign finance was boosted by the revelations of the Watergate scandal and especially by how secret funds were used for illegal campaign activities.
But, at every turn, the parties have circumvented or, as in the 1996 case, contravened the legislation, and have got away with it. Now, in the midst of the most flagrant breaches of campaign finance regulations, corporate dominance of US politics is never raised, except by the Green Party candidate, Ralph Nader. Neither of the two main presidential candidates mentions the issue for they are both clearly violating the law but, more curiously, it is a non-issue in the American media.
It is hardly surprising that Microsoft has been one of the largest contributors, but others have included the securities and investments sector, which has come up with over $24 million; the telecommunications industry, with which Al Gore has a close relationship, has donated nearly $18 million. Even lawyers and lobbyists have contributed nearly $12 million (these figures relate to the period up to June 30th).
Al Gore is fortunate not to have been indicted for his role in the 1996 campaign, but the public unease with him, reflected in his declining poll ratings in the last week, dates in part to that.
One of the issues investigated concerned 52 telephone calls made by Gore from the White House in 1995 seeking campaign contributions, in violation of campaign finance laws. A key point was whether Gore had discussed these calls at a meeting involving President Clinton on November 21st, 1995. Gore denied to FBI agents that there was any such discussion. However, a contemporaneous note of that meeting, taken by one of Gore's own aides, flatly contradicted this. Thus, it appeared not alone did he solicit illegal campaign funds, but he lied about it.
However, of the two main candidates Al Gore is by far the better qualified. As Vice-President to Bill Clinton, he was centrally involved in almost all major foreign policy issues and took the initiative on several, notably the US intervention during the Serbian war on Bosnia. He has been one of America's foremost campaigners on environmental issues (although ridiculed by Nader on that score) and of the two is marginally the more progressive on social security and healthcare.
But there is a character factor that is unsettling - or rather a psychological wellbeing factor. Gore came across as slightly unstable in the presidential debates, although the better debater.
George W. Bush's losing battle with the English language is by far the most interesting element of the campaign. His father had a hard time with the English language as well, but it doesn't seem to matter. People know what he is trying to say and his inarticulateness is for many, it appears, a reassurance.
So too is his position on issues such as the death penalty. According to Amnesty International USA, the state of Texas executes almost as many people in a month as does Iran, Iraq and Saudi Arabia. Bush has authorised over 150 executions and is currently authorising one execution a week. The Pro-Life movement, however, is ardently pro-Bush, believing that, if elected, he will appoint justices to the Supreme Court who will overturn the Roe v Wade decision, which established the right of women to choose an abortion.
The Supreme Court factor has become a key issue in the campaign, which is curious since none of the nine Supreme Court judges seems likely to keel over in the foreseeable future (they are appointed for life).
And it is the Supreme Court that is causing progressives most angst, particularly in relation to the most impressive candidate on offer, Nader. The New York Times and its chief progressive columnist, Anthony Lewis, have been fulminating over Nader, claiming that he will hand the election to Bush by taking votes from Gore in key states and, as a consequence, is likely to hand the Supreme Court over to conservatives. A vote for Nader is a vote for Bush, they argue. Nader has countered that a vote for Gore is a vote for Bush, for there is little difference between them. They both support the death penalty, they both have bought into the gradual dismantling of the welfare state, they are both in favour of the United States unilaterally abrogating the Anti-Test Ban Treaty, they are both into the war on drugs (which amounts to a war against poor black people), and, by the way, Bush is not at all clear on the abortion issue or on who he would appoint to the Supreme Court.
And neither one is a Bill Clinton. Which is sort of a pity.