How many Buddhist monks does it take to make a banana split? Or, if you find that hard, how many banana splits does it take to make a Buddhist monk? The questions are no more nonsensical than the questions put to Vice-President Al Gore in the latest campaign finance furore drummed up by the Republicans and their covert allies. They are out to get Gore, if they can, for his part in raising money for the 1996 election.
It is understandable that the Republicans feel sore about 1996. Clinton, Gore and the Democratic National Committee (DNC) stole a march on Bob Dole and the Republicans by doubling the DNC 1992 advertising budget, then launching an ad blitz early and by stealth. They kept it off the air in New York, Washington and Los Angeles, so that the press did not pick up on it, and the Republicans did not know what had hit them until it was too late. Now the Republicans would like to win the White House in 2000 by indicting the vice-president as an illicit fund-raiser who lied. Last week, they were assisted by a Justice Department counsel who suggested an independent prosecutor should look into some questions about 1996.
When Gore took tea at a Buddhist temple did he know that the monks and nuns were giving dollars to his party? Did he attend coffee mornings for groups of citizens at the White House whose purpose was to raise money for the DNC? Did he dial for dollars from his White House office? If you feel inclined to say so what if he did, you will be in the company of millions of Americans who can't fathom the intricacies of campaign finance laws, of "soft" and "hard" money, of political action committees, and "issue" advertising. All they know is that American elections have become corrupted by big money and secret donations, and they are right.
Gore did not, he says, know that the monks had been asked for money (illegal because they are a tax exempt religious institution). He did make phone calls for money, which is perfectly legal, but doing it sitting in his office instead of going to a pay phone was possibly a breach of the Pendleton Act of 1883. Devised before telephones were in common use, it was intended to stop patronage (political bosses walking the halls to wring money from staff) not to stop the solicitation of outside private individuals, which is what Gore's calls were about. As for the coffee mornings, Gore insists he was not aware of anyone elbowing the coffee drinkers for money. It was an inadequate response. His answer should have been a raspberry.
GW Bush bills himself as a reformer with results, but recoils from this most fundamental of reforms. With backing from big oil, the banks, and a secret group of Pioneers (political power brokers coughing up $100,000 each), he has spent $90m so far against Gore's $35m. Inequitable? Yes. Illegal? No. Federal law, introduced after Watergate, limits "hard" money to candidates and insists on disclosure. The idea was to take the White House off the auction block. But a 1979 amendment and a 1996 Supreme Court ruling put it back there by sanctioning unlimited "soft" money for parties: corporations, wealthy individuals and labour unions can give anything they like to parties to spend on campaign advertising masquerading as "issue" advertising, and bombarding voters by telephone.
More scandals are certainly hatching in the tax exempt committees which can give money but keep secret the identities of their donors. Two of Bush's own party, Republican presidential contenders, John McCain and Steve Forbes, have protested to the Federal Election Commission about the Bush campaign use of such money against them. McCain still seethes about what was done to him.
Gore, on the other hand, has been in favour of reform since 1978, long before McCain made it a hot issue. In an email to Bush on March 14, when their nominations were secure, Gore suggested to Bush that they forswear soft money advertising in favour of debates. All he got was a jeer and a $1.5m savaging in advertising paid for by a "Shape the Debate" group in California.
Gore has pledged that his first bill will be the McCain-Feingold campaign finance bill to ban soft money. Bush would water it down to nothing. And Gore's party will back him; it is the Republicans in Congress who for years have blocked every effort at reform. Their call for an independent prosecutor to investigate the coffee mornings and tea at the temple simply prompts another teaser: how many hypocrites does it take to sustain a political party?