▼ EDITORIAL
EDITOR-IN-CHIEF:
Steven Asbury
MANAGING EDITOR:
Thom Schoenbom
NIGHT EDITOR:
Thom Schoenbom
EDITORIAL EDITORS:
Ashley Bach & Bnan Diamond
editorials, letters, commentary and perspective
NEWSROOM:
(541) 346-5511
DISPLAY ADVERTISING:
(541)346-3712
BUSINESS OFFICE:
(541)346-5512
CLASSIFIED ADVERTISING:
(541)346-4343
, ' "• yw o V" ;
High Stakes
VS
T1 ^ • — ill
Finance
Reform
■ OUR OPINION: Politicians have
no incentive to fix campaign
finance rules
There are always certain issues
that dominate the political
scene. A while ago, it was
welfare. Today it is campaign
finance reform. The idea started years
ago as another campaign promise; the
kind of promise politicians make
when they are running for office and
then promptly forget about after the
election.
However, as the years have gone on,
and more and more cases of illegal
donations to political campaigns have
been uncovered, the issue of
reforming campaign finance rules has
gained popularity. Even President
Clinton, who received a great deal of
heat during his last run for president
for accepting illegal contributions,
pledged to fix the system once and for
all. While all campaign promises
should be viewed with some
skepticism, promises by both
Republicans and Democrats about
campaign finance reform are
particularly hard to swallow.
One problem with campaign
finance reform is illegal donations to
politicians’ campaigns. During the last
presidential campaign, Clinton was
accused of accepting illegal donations
of up to $425,000 from Indonesian
businessmen to finance his campaign.
While Bob Dole made a big issue out
of this in his run for president, he has
been just as guilty of accepting
questionable donations in the past.
The former vice-chairman of Dole’s
campaign finance committee recently
received a $1 million fine for finance
violations.
The problem of campaign finance
reform goes beyond individual
parties. Republicans and Democrats
both receive millions of dollars every
year from individual interest groups
to help fund their campaigns. With
the cost of a presidential campaign
ranging from $250 million for the
Democrats to $400 million
for the Republicans,
campaign donations are
more than a luxury in
running for office — they’re
a necessity.
Because campaign
donations play such a central
role in running an effective
campaign, it is easy to see why
politicians would be reluctant to
reform the system. After all, they
are the ones benefiting from the
“problem.” Why would they want
to change a system that allows them
to take in donations as big as
$100,000 at a time?
Clinton’s renewed enthusiasm for
cleaning up campaign finance reform
is a reflection of the public’s disgust
with finance violations. The general
belief in Washington seems to be that
the public is fed up with special
interest groups buying off politicians.
While this may be true, the public is
probably more fed up with the empty
promises than anything else.
The public knows that politics is
about money. Money talks, and if
someone is receiving over $100,000
from a campaign donor, that person
is going to listen. While campaign
finance reform would be nice, a
better gift to the American people
would be for politicians to stop
pretending they want to clean up a
system that benefits them. We know
they have nothing to gain from fixing
campaign finance rules and millions
of dollars to lose.
Campaign finance reform is a
problem that needs addressing.
Unfortunately, the people with the
power to fix the system have the least
incentive to want to fix it. If real
reform is going to be achieved, it is
going to have to be from an
organization outside of Washington.
Until that happens, campaign finance
reform will remain a plan easier
promised than delivered.
This editorial represents the opinion
of the Emerald editorial board.
"psl$6anN&
OUfrOFRAWp- J
CHRIS HUTCHINSON/Emerald
“These pieces of evidence are the voices
of Ron and Nicole speaking to us from
their graves, telling us that there is a killer
in this courtroom, Orenthal Simpson."
Plaintiff attorney, Daniel Pefrocelll,
in last week's closing arguments in the
O.J. Simpson civil trial.
“I was extremely torn. Frightened and
tense, I took a big gulp and said, ‘Go
ahead, go ahead, go ahead. Let’s go. Let's
publish.”’
Former Washington Post Publisher
Katharine Graham,
on publishing the Pentagon Papers in
1971, from her upcoming autobiography,
“Personal History."
“What’s happened is that my customers
have more money to spend in my store.
My customers are better off. I'm better
off.”
Storekeeper Gary Moore,
on stopping the sale of lottery tickets
in his O’Brien, CA
country store.
“This has been the longest 20 years of my
life. Of course, I’m only 24, but still.”
Eugene Resident Michael Hendrix,
while waiting in line for the “Star Wars" \
re-release on Friday, as quoted in |
We Register-Guard, j
“We’re not naive. We feel that there is still
a problem, and that’s why we are address
ing it."
Marine Corps Maj. Scott Campbell,
on new revelations of troop hazing \
in elite Marines teams.
“It’s one thing to punish a man. It’s
another thing to take away his dignity.”
Jesse Jackson,
on Dennis Rodman’s 11 -game j
suspension and required psychiatric \
counseling. \
“For a number of years in the community,
we've been number three or four in the
nation for meth production.”
Eugene police department Sgt. Rick Slel,
on the virtues of Eugene, as quoted j
in the Emerald.
"It’s something I dream about every
night.”
Ducks Forward Henry Madden,
on hitting the game-winning shot against \
UCLA on Jan. 30. \
LETTERS
A good game ruined
I was appalled at the unsports
manlike behavior of some of the
Duck fans in the front sections
during and after the Ducks-UCLA
game.
During the game, members of
the UCLA team were subjected to
taunts and name-calling by Uni
versity students that went way
yond friendly competition. Al
the game, these same stude
rushed en mas -,- over to the l ■(’!
sam
bench in mob-like behavior to
rumble with the team. Why did
they come to the game, anyway?
Unfortunately, the actions of
these few people reflects on the
University and the city Eugene as
a whole. The vast majority of
Ducks fans look upon these acts
in distaste and although our team
won, as one member of the audi
ence remarked. “They succeeded
'
Ron Tinsley
Racist fans
As fans at Mac Court, we have
been called many things: fanati
cal, maniacs, toughest crowd in
the Pac-10. Unfortunately, now
we’re also racists.
Ron Bellamy reported in Fri
day’s Eugene Register-Guard that
fans at the UCLA game shouted
racial slurs at Bruin players dur
ing the game and then charged
repulsive. Who do we think we
are? What is it about an exciting
basketball game the encourages
racism? Absolutely nothing.
We have a serious problem
here — not just those who shout
ed their moronic insults, but all of
us who allow this to go on. All of
us who hear racial slurs being
shouted and don't say something
against this blatant disrespect for
others are also to blame.
UCLA forward Kris Johnson
great to play against and helped
get the Bruins off the court after
the game. Their actions, as well as
the Bruin players’ restraint and
maturity in the face of racism,
should be applauded. I only hope
that we as fans can come to have
the same amount of class as the
players we cheer for.
Eric Porter
Eugene