On corruption

Many innocent electrons have been spilt in discussions of John McCain’s apparent dalliance with a lobbyist from Paxson Communication. The discourse has largely focused on whether he had an affair (probably), and whether the New York Times and Washington Post did the right thing in reporting on it (definitely).

I say he probably had an affair not only because of what the Times and Post reported, but because McCain’s two wives look quite similar to each other (and to the lobbyist), and because his first marriage ended because of an affair with his second wife. In 1979, Steve Benen reminds us, “McCain was still married and living with his wife ? while ? ‘aggressively courting a 25-year-old woman who was as beautiful as she was rich.’ McCain divorced his wife, who had raised their three children while he was imprisoned in Vietnam, then launched his political career with his new wife’s family money.” They married a month after his divorce.

So McCain is a known philanderer, and it wouldn’t be entirely surprising if he had a fling with the lobbyist. At least, the affair wouldn’t be surprising. What is disturbing is how much of what he did with and for her was considered legal and ethical. Here’s the Times’ account of such actions:

turning up with him at fund-raisers, visiting his offices and accompanying him on a client?s corporate jet. ? Mr. McCain had written letters to government regulators on behalf of the lobbyist?s client,? Her clients contributed tens of thousands of dollars to his campaigns.

What ended her access to McCain was not the sense that she might be buying his vote on issues of concern to those clients, but, according to the Times:

some of the senator?s advisers had grown so concerned that the relationship had become romantic that they took steps to intervene.

A former campaign adviser described being instructed to keep Ms. Iseman away from the senator at public events, while a Senate aide recalled plans to limit Ms. Iseman?s access to his offices.

The propriety of his voting pattern or the corrosive influence of money on the Senator is not mentioned. The idea that he might be having an affair was their main concern. Secondarily, they worried about political messaging:

?Our political messaging during that time period centered around taking on the special interests and placing the nation?s interests before either personal or special interest,? [senior McCain advisor] Mr. Weaver continued. ?Ms. Iseman?s involvement in the [2000] campaign, it was felt by us, could undermine that effort.?

Could undermine the presidential campaign, not the public trust or the Senator’s ability to evaluate legislation. That’s a telling omission. McCain’s defense?

Mr. McCain said that the relationship was not romantic and that he never showed favoritism to Ms. Iseman or her clients. ?I have never betrayed the public trust by doing anything like that,? he said.

The defense, then, is not that he didn’t do favors for her or her clients, but merely that he gave her the same sorts of favors he gave to other lobbyists.

That’s disgraceful. Some candidates might be able to say that campaign contributions (or a sexual relationship?) wouldn’t affect their voting pattern, but it’s much harder for McCain to make that case. He is, after all, the champion of campaign finance reform, and just last November, insisted “I?m the only one the special interests don?t give any money to.”

Why would he care about that if he didn’t think that money bought influence? Not, of course, quid pro quo, since that would be bribery. But the sort of soft feeling of obligation that ensures lobbyists have a politician’s ear at a key moment, and that their advice is weighted more heavily than it otherwise might be.

This is a sad state of affairs, when even a former champion of clean government cannot see any problem in the sort of access that a lobbyist was able to purchase.

Needless to say, this is a key reason why I hope Larry Lessig runs for office. I know that politicians all take money from special interests, and I know that there are other standards by which we can judge the excellence of a candidate. But until we have a system where access to our leaders is allocated not on the basis of financial wherewithal, but on the basis of legitimate need, our government will continue to fail us all in crucial ways. Lessig sees the problem, and his stature and station give him a degree of independence that will permit him to champion genuine reform. He won’t finish the job in one or two terms, and even if he leaves office in a couple years, the time inside the system will make him a more effective advocate. I’d love to see more public intellectuals try their hand at practical governance, and Lessig is the perfect person to chart a new course for the nation and for politically-minded academics.

The system is broken, and nothing will change while the same corporate interests control the same sorts of politicians.

Comments

  1. #1 DaPrez
    February 25, 2008

    Wow… I wander over to your blog to discover you piling on the McCain smear with this diatribe. The NYT editors, after the paper was ionized by political and media reaction, played their contrition cards in attempt to salvage what little remains of its reputation.
    http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/21/business/media/21askthenewsroom.html?bl&ex=1203829200&en=3e9cf2694e0e6f40&ei=5087
    http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/24/opinion/24pubed.html?pagewanted=1&ei=5087&em&en=0cc088c86203723a&ex=1203915600

    The stench from this thing even was detected in the southern hemisphere…
    http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23274874-20261,00.html

    The NY Times has become increasingly unreliable but the editors can leverage enough respect to endure and try to repair their integrity.

    Your dogpiling still stands with no remorse.
    “I say he probably had an affair not only because of what the Times and Post reported, but because McCain’s two wives look quite similar to each other (and to the lobbyist), and because his first marriage ended because of an affair with his second wife.”

    That statement is just pure nasty. Someday you might regret it.

  2. #2 Josh Rosenau
    February 26, 2008

    I think it was pretty nasty of McCain to have an affair with an heiress, then divorce his wife and remarry a month later. I’m not the one who should be remorseful. I mean, sure, she had been in a car accident and wasn’t as pretty any more, but I’m not inclined to think that excuses it. Do you?

    I see a lot of anger in your comment, but I don’t see a lot of evidence that anything I wrote, or anything the Post or Times wrote, is factually incorrect. Indeed, the reporting since then has borne out the major point I made above, which is that McCain is much more lobbyist-friendly than people tend to assume.

  3. #3 DaPrez
    February 28, 2008

    You are right there is a lot of anger in my comment. Anger at the NY Times writers libelous article suggesting McCain was having an affair with Vicki Iseman. Anger about what you are doing to further support and extend that libel.
    You’ve taken the most unoriginal approach to try and discredit the very distinguished man that will be your next President. You can’t stand the thought of this so you will just tell lies to assassinate his character. At least PhotoShop together a Monkey Business photo for us.
    McCain’s first marriage ended badly. He admits it. He got an uncontested divorce. What were they suppose to do stay in a love-less marriage for the rest of their lives?
    McCain’s ex-wife supports his candidacy for President. So much for your “nasty” assessment about how their marriage ended.
    Why don’t you try to use something to discredit McCain’s character to that has more merit? I’ll give you a hint. Look at the number of demerits he received while at the Naval Academy and where he graduate in his class.

  4. #4 Josh Rosenau
    February 29, 2008

    “What were they suppose to do stay in a love-less marriage for the rest of their lives?”

    Not having an affair with his second wife would be a good start. It isn’t the first wife’s fault that she got in a car crash and didn’t look so nice any more, but love should be able to see past that stuff.

    You banter around the word “libel,” quite a bit there, and you might want to rethink that. First, because truth is an absolute defense, and second, because neither I nor the Times said that McCain definitely had an affair. They quoted McCain aides who worried that he might be having an affair, and I said that I found that entirely plausible.

    I also said that I didn’t think that was the big issue. “What is disturbing,” I wrote, “is how much of what he did with and for her was considered legal and ethical.” You want me to “use something to discredit McCain’s character to that has more merit”? Fine, how about the speed with which his opposition to torture disappeared? How about the fact that Mr. Campaign Finance Reform is very cozy with lobbyists. Not just Ms. Iseman, but his senior campaign staff is full of Washington lobbyists. How about his attempt to game the campaign finance system by using the promise of federal matching funds to secure a loan, and then ducking out of the federal funding system when it looked inconvenient? What do I care about how many demerits he got in college? What is he doing right now that would actually make this a better country? A hundred years in Iraq? No thanks.

Current ye@r *