Print This Page Email This Page See Most Sent

Catch up. Plenty of Note archives.

NOTE: The Note will not publish tomorrow. We'll be back Monday. Happy holidays.

NEWS SUMMARY

But that struck us as too easy.

Instead, we'll lead with a serious, non-rhetorical question for our readers: does anyone know of any other time a president has signed a bill after saying he believed it to be largely unconstitutional?

Process junkies who have been fascinated by the saga of McCain-Feingold-Shays-Meehan need not necessarily mourn that the show is over just because the president signed it. Ms. Comstock of the Justice Department has said that Solicitor General Ted Olson will defend the law in court. So, how do you (a collective Administration "you") go into court and defend a law when you've said major portions of it are unconstitutional?

As best we can tell from our read-through of this morning's papers, the national political media pretty much gives the president a pass on this (we think) rather big question, focusing instead on the easier-to-target lack of a signing ceremony, with not many reporters really getting into why that might have been.

The bill's chief sponsors are justifiably upset with the absence of a signing ceremony, but so are conservative groups with the meat of the law itself, and the fact that the White House intends to defend it; the American Conservative Union is asking the White House not to force the Justice Department to argue in favor of the bill. This marks the latest in a series of issues conservatives are having lately with the White House, along with its Mideast policy; some recent, arguably moderate nominees like NIH director-designate Zerhouni; the White House's involvement on behalf of more centrist candidates in contested GOP primaries; and the steel and lumber tariff decisions.

Ari said yesterday that the (lack of) "ceremony the White House chose is reflective of the president's thoughts on the legislation," and that it would be "inconsistent to have a Rose Garden ceremony for a bill which on balance improves the system, but contains what the president views as several important flaws."

"The 'stealth signing ceremony,' as one McCain supporter described it, was notable not just for the ambivalence it suggested on Bush's part, but for the messages it sent to both his supporters who despise the legislation and to McCain, the Arizona Republican whom Bush defeated in the GOP presidential primaries," the Boston Globe reports.
( http://www.boston.com/dailyglobe2/087/nation/
Campaign_finance_law_signed_without_ceremony+.shtml )

"Core constituencies in the Republican Party have vehemently opposed the bill, and a lavish White House ceremony would have further aggravated them. A ceremony would also have given a spotlight to McCain."

"A White House official said the low-key approach was necessary to avoid 'sticking it in the eye' of House Republican leaders, who had fought the measure to the end. 'The president is not a hypocrite,' the official said. 'It would have been completely inconsistent with his position on the bill to have some big South Lawn ceremony with ruffles and flourishes.'" ( http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A28342-2002Mar27.html )

So the president gets off easy on the first round of stories, and yet there's a lot of fundraising stuff out there today. Bush himself will day-trip from the Crawford ranch to Dallas to headline fundraisers for Texas Republican candidates, including Senate nominee John Cornyn.

Ms. Orin of the New York Post further fills in the picture of the White House's permanent campaign: "Bush began his Easter break yesterday with three Senate fund-raisers (South Carolina, Georgia and Texas) in two days. By the end of April, he'll have done 10, covering all the key races where the GOP has picked candidates." ( http://www.nypost.com/commentary/44626.htm )

"Insiders say Bush has even made his own personal donor lists, the most prized property in politics since he raised a record amount, available to some Senate candidates for their fund-raising efforts."

"After targeted Senate races get a personal fund-raising visit from Bush, they can also count on one from Vice President Dick Cheney — and possibly another from ex-Mayor Rudy Giuliani, who's coordinating with the White House."

Roll Call notes how the combination of the looming Federal Election Commission quarterly filing deadline and the earlier-than-usual congressional recess are combining to fuel a fundraising frenzy. ( http://www.rollcall.com/pages/news/00/2002/03/news0328a.html )

"In yet another sign of the White House's high level of political activity, the Republican National Committee arranged a two-day plane tour of California for three GOP Senate candidates in highly touted races. Traveling together to Los Angeles, San Jose, Palo Alto and Orange County, Rep. John Thune (S.D.), former Rep. Jim Talent (Mo.) and one-time St. Paul Mayor Norm Coleman (Minn.) raked in between $200,000 and $300,000 each from wealthy backers of President Bush."

And, in another story, Roll Call reports that "House Democratic campaign officials are embracing an across-the-board increase in Member dues … as part of a larger effort to build a reliable hard-dollar resource as the party enters a new campaign finance landscape." The new dues are intended to match those levied on/by House Republicans. ( http://www.rollcall.com/pages/news/00/2002/03/news0328c.html )

"The new campaign finance rules will force a reckoning for the Democrats. They have estimated that the Republicans have 40 times more donors willing to give the party hard-dollar contributions in increments reaching $2,000 an election cycle."

Just a few reviews of Bush's trips to South Carolina and Atlanta yesterday.

Here's the lead from South Carolina's biggest paper: "President Bush pledged to give homeland security as much attention in small-town South Carolina as in the nation's big cities in a speech Wednesday to Upstate emergency workers." The story does note that "The president was in town to speak at a fund-raiser for U.S. Rep. Lindsey Graham, a candidate for the U.S. Senate seat held by 99-year-old Strom Thurmond, who is retiring." ( http://www.thestate.com/mld/thestate/2951630.htm )

The State's Bandy adds, "The White House added a homeland security event to Bush's schedule in order to split the cost of the president's travel between the taxpayers and Graham's campaign." ( http://www.thestate.com/mld/thestate/news/politics/2951680.htm )

"Before the luncheon, Bush attended a private reception during which sponsors who raised between $20,000 and $50,000 had their pictures taken with the president."

"Bob Jones III, president of Bob Jones University, was among the luncheon guests. Jones said he did not speak to the president."

The Atlanta Journal-Constitution , perhaps noticing the weirdness of Bush's day, also plays up both the political and the terror angles of his trips. ( http://www.accessatlanta.com/ajc/metro/0302/0328bush.html )

The New York Times follows the money: "Of the total of $2.5 million raised at the two events today, the White House said, $500,000 was in unlimited soft-money donations to the state Republican parties, contributions that are restricted by the new law." ( http://www.nytimes.com/2002/03/28/politics/28BUSH.html )

"The $25,000 that each donor paid the Georgia Republican Party to meet with the president tonight, for example, would have been forbidden under the new law, which not only bars soft money to the national parties but also limits such donations to state and local parties to $10,000 a year per individual."

"On the other hand, the legislation also increases, to $2,000 an election, the amount that a person may contribute directly to a candidate, twice the amount that Mr. Bush helped raise in such hard-money contributions today."

Technically, the provision that President Bush would violate if he were to do the same campaign swing in two years is the act of raising soft money — federal officeholders and candidates are barred from that. (The Georgia Republican Party can set up a state account to take in as much money as it wants, but it can't use federal officeholders to do so, nor spend the money on federal elections, nor can it transfer the money to the national party.)

Attorney General Ashcroft will appear at various events in Florida today, including a stop in Tallahassee later this afternoon at which Gov. Jeb Bush (R) will appear. This event is not a fundraiser, but we'd note that joint appearances are about as much as any candidate could hope to get with the occupant of the politically hypersensitive post of AG.

Roll Call reports, "Senate Appropriations Chairman Robert Byrd (D-W.Va.) is expected to reject Homeland Security Director Tom Ridge's offer to informally brief lawmakers about the administration's counterterrorism plans, setting up a potential showdown between Congress and the White House." ( http://www.rollcall.com/pages/news/00/2002/03/news0328e.html )

A weekend TV heads-up, in case of rain: on Sunday evening, C-SPAN will broadcast Vermont Gov. Howard Dean's speech to the Manchester City Democratic Club on March 24, followed by Karl Rove's chat yesterday with supporters of Georgia Senate candidate Saxby Chambliss.

From the ABCNEWS London Bureau: Israeli Prime Minister Sharon consulted his defense chief this morning as Israel weighed its response to the Palestinian suicide bombing that killed at least 20 people at a Passover holiday celebration last night. Israeli Defense Minister Ben-Eliezer also met with army commanders early today. The attack, for which the militant group Hamas claimed responsibility, has raised concern that it could undermine the latest peace initiative … Arab leaders have approved a final draft of a Saudi initiative offering Israel peace and "normal relations" in exchange for Israel's ending its occupation of their lands. The first day of the summit was marred by the absence of three key players and a Palestinian delegation walkout.

Energy Task Force/ Enron

Aside from the clear influence wielded by the energy industry on the administration's energy plan, there's little actual evidence of anything that would be improper — yet. The New York Times relies on the Natural Resources Defense Council for its energy policy talking points today, and while the NRDC does a good job of showing how a certain lobby's proposals became Bush policy, it doesn't go much beyond that.

The Washington Times offers a status report from a slightly different angle: "The Natural Resources Defense Council … abandoned its year-long complaint against the administration amid evidence released this week that the Energy Department reached out for advice from environmentalist groups — and in some cases got snubbed. The NRDC yesterday conceded that the department obtained its recommendations and weighed them in drafting its energy plan. And the NRDC revealed it had three more previously undisclosed meetings with top energy task-force officials last year while the energy plan was being drafted." ( http://www.washtimes.com/business/20020328-13910220.htm )

The New York Times , along with the Washington Post , does ferret out a series of e-mails from the American Petroleum Institute calling for an executive order "to highlight a law that the industry group said was already on the books but was not being enforced … On May 18, the day after the release of the energy policy, Mr. Bush signed an order calling for just that. One passage that defines what regulatory action is needed at other federal agencies reads very similarly to a passage in the draft order the petroleum institute submitted." ( http://www.nytimes.com/2002/03/28/politics/28ENER.html )

Here's the Post 's version: ( http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A28281-2002Mar27.html ).

We don't want to sound like a broken record, but very few political figures in Washington exempt themselves from using the knowledge, expertise, and yes, sometimes the biases of lobbyists to help them on critical legislation.

A New York Times editorial does make one point we reported previously: that the administration's comparison of how similar their plan is to recommendations by the environmentalist lobby is, well, somewhat disingenuous. ( http://www.nytimes.com/2002/03/28/opinion/_28THU1.html )

Here's our article on the subject.

Here's the Times write-up of Army Secretary White's casual press conference yesterday, in which he strongly denied any wrongdoing with regard to his Enron connections. ( http://www.nytimes.com/2002/03/28/business/28WHIT.html )

Arthur Andersen is spending a lot of money on media consultants and paid advertising. The latest result is a full-page ad in today's The Wall Street Journal . This gambit is a mostly illegible, handwritten appeal from famed UCLA basketball John Wooden to the president invoking the Wizard of Westwood's famous theme with no obvious explanation as to why it is that saving Andersen is so important.

Budget Politics

The Commerce Department has revised the fourth-quarter GDP for 2001 from earlier estimate of 1.4 percent to 1.7 percent, due to stronger consumer and government spending.

It could have as much to do with their not liking being ordered around as with serious, policy-grounded disputes over funding. White House budget director Mitch Daniels' speech to the US Chamber of Commerce yesterday got the proverbial finger from Hill Democrats and a lukewarm response from the office of the chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee.

Daniels told the Chamber that "it was too early to talk about vetoes, but stressed that President Bush didn't want Congress to add new spending to the supplemental appropriations bill he submitted last week or to the $2.1 trillion budget submitted last month." ( http://www.washtimes.com/national/20020328-25534568.htm )

"Mr. Bush last week submitted a $27 billion supplemental appropriations bill that covered defense spending, new State Department expenses related to pursuing terrorists, and money to rebuild New York City. Mr. Daniels said that bill will be the first test to see if Congress tries to add more spending than the president is willing to accept on the domestic side, or if lawmakers respect his emphasis on spending increases primarily for defense."

"Spokesmen for leaders of the House and Senate appropriations committees say they will work to complete the process in a timely manner, and they are committed to providing money for the war on terrorism. But they say Congress will assert its priorities on domestic spending."

A spokesman for the (Republican) House Ways and Means chair suggested "'there are some holes in the domestic side of the budget.'"

The bonus sports section of your hard copy of the The Wall Street Journal today is the military industrial's complex's 21st Century wet dream: who will benefit from increased military spending?

ABC 2004: The Invisible Primary

A lot of papers cover Senate Governmental Affairs Committee chairman Joe Lieberman's direct challenge to the administration to produce all correspondence between Enron and the White House since 1992 — the first time the Senator has directly challenged the Bush Administration on its dealings with Enron.

All of which heightens the anticipation of Lieberman's Monday speech on Enron and corporate ethics in New York.

His former running mate, meanwhile, had tough words for the White House about its energy policy this week, but those remarks got one story in the Nashville paper yesterday, written by a reporter who snuck into the otherwise closed event. ( http://www.tennessean.com/nation-
world/archives/02/03/15331563.shtml?Element_ID=15331563 )

The Boston Globe looks at House Minority Leader Gephardt's hectic travel-and-fundraising schedule, does the now-usual pondering of Gephardt's national ambitions beyond winning back the House and becoming Speaker (if he even wants that job), and includes the typical questions about whether he could run for president if Democrats don't win back the House and from Gephardt aides suggesting he can. "Everything Gephardt is doing now to help his fellow Democrats works double-duty to help a potential presidential bid."
( http://www.boston.com/dailyglobe2/087/nation/Gephardt_s_
frenetic_pace_lends_itself_to_future_opportunities+.shtml )

Bob Novak cuddles up to Senator Russ Feingold, lovingly labels him a "maverick," and counts him "in the old tradition of Wisconsin and Senate progressives."
( http://www.suntimes.com/output/novak/cst-edt-novak281.html )

"Feingold's defection from the party line permitted the Senate Budget Committee to approve limited extension of spending caps, which expire at the end of this fiscal year," Novak writes. "If he had failed, it would have been next to impossible to add spending caps on the Senate floor. Now, thanks to Feingold, the door is open for strengthened spending limitations."

We're pretty sure this was an unscientific poll, but Washingtonian magazine called 29 Democratic state party chairs and asked them who their dream tickets would be for 2004. Senator Edwards got the most mentions, 16, including eight as the presidential pick (but that also means eight might've found him a little too green for the top slot). Only one chair named Gore for prez. House Minority Leader Gephardt placed second with five votes for the top slot; Senator Kerry got four votes; and Senate Majority Leader Daschle got three.

Vermont Gov. Howard Dean is on his second straight day in Iowa, campaigning for House candidate John Norris (D) in Des Moines.

"Welcome to the wild wacky world of Washington politics, where people sometimes destroy the village to save it," the Washington Post writes in telling the tale of how Senator Joseph Biden is holding up some Transportation Department nominees to try to force a vote on Amtrak security funding, which has led to something of a Catch 22. ( http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A28251-2002Mar27.html )

Politics

With Democratic Senator Jon Corzine's announcement that he's getting divorced, New Jersey will have two single divorced Senators. We wonder whether that's happened before.

We know the US Supreme Court fight between Utah and North Carolina over that new congressional seat can be eye-glazing, but it's an important lesson on the difference 857 people can make, not to mention the potential source, depending on the outcome, of a big unholy mess.

As the Washington Times explains, "The case pits Utah and North Carolina in a battle over one additional seat in Congress. So far, that seat has been decided in North Carolina's favor by an imbalance of 857 persons under the imputation' process. Utah claimed this process constituted 'sampling,' which the Supreme Court said in 1999 could not be used to apportion congressional seats." ( http://www.washtimes.com/national/20020328-417708.htm )

Here's the coverage from the two states, with the Utah paper noting (as does the Washington Post ) that key swing vote Justice O'Connor seems to be leaning Utah's way.

( http://www.newsobserver.com/thursday/news/Story/1107773p-1105971c.html )

and

( http://deseretnews.com/dn/view/0,1249,380008677,00.html )

As the Washington Times story notes, Solicitor General Ted "Olson said the president would comply with a court request, but sidestepped the question when asked if he believed the president was bound by law to transmit a late recompilation of census figures if Commerce Secretary Donald L. Evans was ordered to prepare one."

"Mr. Olson's stance appeared at odds with the House Republicans who forced the 1999 Supreme Court 5-4 decision that scientific 'sampling' was specifically illegal, although the court stopped short of defining the Constitution's requirement for "actual enumeration."

California

Both Gov. Gray Davis (D) and GOP opponent Bill Simon are reaching out to minorities. ( http://www.sfgate.com/cgi
-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2002/03/28/MN161338.dtl )

The The Wall Street Journal has a story that discovers the "rival agendas" roiling the Latino elites in California. It has to do with a pro-Hispanic (but non-Hispanic) candidate allegedly not wanting too many Hispanics in his district, and the Hispanic politicians in Sacramento who strongly disagree with him. The phrases "divided loyalties," "racially divisive," "unity," and "frivolous" are all there, and we're a little confused.

Florida

We wondered why one of the most powerful unions in Florida, the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME), has yet to endorse a candidate for governor. A few well-connected Democrats suggest that AFSCME is leaning toward endorsing Janet Reno, but they're getting pressure from other unions to join the labor bandwagon and endorse Bill McBride instead. The compromise: hold the line, avoiding a McBride endorsement and not embarrassing Reno. AFSCME representatives were not available for comment yesterday.

Privately, Reno's campaign advisers will admit that the former Attorney General hasn't done enough to court unions which, along with the elderly, Hispanics and African Americans, comprise a crucial element of the base vote for Democrats in Florida.

The Miami Herald wraps up Reno's West Coast (of the United States) tour. ( http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/news/state/2948977.htm)

North Carolina

The Raleigh News & Observer reports that Elizabeth Dole "was going to help kick off the Azalea Festival in Wilmington next week, but her appearance has been blocked by the administration of Democratic Gov. Mike Easley, which said it would be inappropriate for a political candidate to speak on the battleship USS North Carolina. Dole is one of three people who had been invited to speak April 3 at the war memorial."
( http://www.newsobserver.com/thursday/front/Story/1107807p-1105996c.html )

Tennessee

We're not sure how real this is, but the New York Post perpetuates the notion that "the White House may try to boost ex-Gov. Lamar Alexander and block a primary bid by Rep. Ed Bryant" in the Republican Senate race. ( http://www.nypost.com/commentary/44626.htm )

Massachusetts

"Republican gubernatorial candidate Mitt Romney is refusing to rule out tax increases and said yesterday he will not sign a 'no new taxes' pledge," though he noted that he "opposes all tax increases in principle."
( http://www.boston.com/dailyglobe2/087/metro/
Romney_won_t_sign_a_pledge_of_no_new_tax+.shtml )

"Last Thursday, Romney told reporters he wouldn't freeze or roll back the voter-approved income tax cut to 5 percent. He said he would oppose any other hikes and wouldn't sign new taxes into law — while suggesting he could cut spending, increase services and avoid layoffs. That day, Romney called the position 'my pledge.'" ( http://www.bostonherald.com/news/local_regional/romn03282002.htm )

Bush Administration Strategy/Personality

Homeland Security Director Tom Ridge won't testify before Congress. But for $2,000, anyone — even you — can quiz him on homeland security.

Legislative Agenda

The Los Angeles Times adds a previously missing piece to the administration's welfare reform plan, resolving some controversy that erupted last month during the rollout. "The Bush administration … would allow low-income parents to meet part of their work requirements by participating in organized activities with their children, including Scouts, boys and girls clubs, educational programs and sports … The details, which are part of a broader White House proposal to toughen the work rules for welfare recipients, were not initially spelled out in the administration's welfare plan, which was unveiled last month." ( http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/front/la-000022331ma
r28.story?coll=la%2Dheadlines%2Dfrontpage )

Election Reform

Should judges be elected? Should judges seeking election be able to say what they want? Or is the judiciary sacrosanct? The Supreme Court will soon decide on what some social psychologists might call an "identity issue" for them. Here's an op-ed arguing that people ought to know about the judges they're electing. ( http://www.nytimes.com/2002/03/28/opinion/28GILL.html )

Steel

"The U.S. government, under fire from several countries at the World Trade Organization for imposing tariffs on imported steel, took the first step toward launching a WTO case of its own against the European Union's steel tariffs. The EU's tariffs, which were formally announced yesterday, are aimed at keeping foreign steel blocked from the U.S. market from pouring into Europe. But the U.S. Trade Representative's Office said the EU tariffs appear to violate WTO rules because European officials haven't demonstrated that their steel industry has suffered 'injury' from imports."
( http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A28732-2002Mar27.html )

ABCNEWS Political Director Mark Halperin provided research assistance to today's Note.