When everything looks like a bribe

By Richard Horn / Abilene Reporter-News

As President Clinton begins his three-week vacation on the Vineyard, consider two bits of rubble he leaves behind.

The first is a sad tale about former deputy White House chief of staff Harold Ickes. The second, a sad tale about Archer-Daniels-Midland Co. and the subsidy that will not die.

As with many depressing tales these days, both stories involve Texans and campaign cash.

Ickes is the son of Franklin Roosevelt's Secretary of the Interior, who was a proud liberal with a strong record. His son is a proud liberal who wanted to fight to make the world better, too. He had high hopes when he joined the Clinton Administration.

But he fell out of favor and became something else entirely: a seedy bagman for an administration that stopped believing in almost everything but pursuit of the almighty campaign buck. Ickes' descent has been sympathetically described in the New York Times and this month's Vanity Fair, both of which detailed this incident:

Days before last fall's election, President Clinton attended a fund-raiser and was approached by a man representing a rich, blue-jeaned Texan named William Morgan. He wordlessly handed Clinton a card upon which was written: "My associate has $5 million he is prepared to donate to your campaign."

You think Clinton was offended? Think again. Our president said, "Let me have another one of those cards for my staff."

He gave it to Ickes, who dutifully called Morgan's "associate" and discovered the Texan, like other campaign givers, had a price in mind. He needed a tax write-off on a forthcoming $300 million bond deal.

So Ickes, who joined the White House wanting to bring health care to destitute children, sat in his White House office and told Morgan's man the White House was desperate for cash to run TV ads. He personally believed this was squandering money on foolish ads that would serve no purpose. But the Oval Office insisted.

Finally, after dozens of calls, Ickes sent a fax, from the White House, describing how to circumnavigate campaign laws so the contribution could be tax-deductible. Morgan kept it and showed it to prospective bond-buyers as proof the White House was going to help him with his deal.

Peeee-yuuuuu, as my mother used to say when she opened my closet door. Ickes kept meticulous notes, which are now in the hands of Senate investigators. So is the fax.

Not that Senate investigators have room to complain. They helped keep Archer-Daniels-Midland fat and happy.

This was supposed to be the year the 20-year-old ethanol subsidy got killed. Bob Dole, its staunchest supporter, is gone. The Clinton administration's economic advisors thought there was no reason for it. The subsidy made every list of "corporate welfare."

Republican Rep. Bill Archer of Houston wanted to kill the subsidy, which has cost $7 billion over the past two decades even though the oil crisis that created it is long gone.

This was supposed to be a temporary subsidy, but it continues to exist even though ethanol, only available in Cornbelt states, accounts for less than 1 percent of national fuel consumption, a share that congressional researchers insist will not increase.

But Archer couldn't do it, because politicians with presidential dreams are scared to death of Iowa corn growers. And he couldn't because ADM, the chief producer of ethanol, has thrown millions at politicians, including $1,000 at our own Charles Stenholm this year. The subsidy never even received a clear up or down vote in the House. Republican leaders wouldn't let it.

In the Senate, Phil Gramm, who preaches fiscal responsibility, became an "ethanol convert" this year. The Wall Street Journal reported he told one surprised Senate colleague he still has presidential ambitions, and thus needs "friends in Iowa."

And Clinton, despite what his economic advisors tell him, dealt the final blow to the effort and now vows to extend the subsidy until 2007. Vice President Al Gore, steadily sucking up business money and booking flights to Iowa for his race in 2000, vows to fight by his side.

Complain about either of these stories and the politicians and their apologists will call you cynical. But it's a cynicism now shared by a growing number of voters, especially young ones. And who can blame them? Both Republcians and Democrats have birthed and now nurture and defend a political world in which everything looks like a bribe.

It's now fashionable to "blame the system." Change it, yes, but the true blame lies with the politicians who panic and pump the system for all it's worth, and those of us who watch and let it happen, over and over again.