Jewish World Review Jan. 7, 2004 / 13 Teves, 5764

Tony Blankley

JWR's Pundits
World Editorial
Cartoon Showcase

Mallard Fillmore

Michael Barone
Mona Charen
Linda Chavez
Ann Coulter
Greg Crosby
Larry Elder
Don Feder
Suzanne Fields
James Glassman
Paul Greenberg
Bob Greene
Betsy Hart
Nat Hentoff
David Horowitz
Marianne Jennings
Michael Kelly
Mort Kondracke
Ch. Krauthammer
Lawrence Kudlow
Dr. Laura
John Leo
Michelle Malkin
Jackie Mason
Chris Matthews
Michael Medved
Kathleen Parker
Wes Pruden
Sam Schulman
Amity Shlaes
Roger Simon
Tony Snow
Thomas Sowell
Cal Thomas
Jonathan S. Tobin
Ben Wattenberg
George Will
Bruce Williams
Walter Williams
Mort Zuckerman

Consumer Reports

Funding for American presidential elections is beginning to go global | Funding for American presidential elections is beginning to go global.

From Sweden to Canada to Portugal, on international Web sites, solicitations are popping up urging the citizens of the world to contribute to advertising campaigns intended to influence our November presidential election. Of course they are not trying to re-elect George Bush. The candidacies of Howard Dean and Wesley Clark seem to be the inspiration for such efforts. There is no evidence, yet, that either of those campaigns is directly running these operations. But the Clark campaign has inched dangerously close.

Perceptive reporting by The Talon News and the Drudge Report over the last three weeks has begun to reveal this unprecedented fund-raising tactic. According to Drudge, the official Web site for Wesley Clark is linked to "CanadaForClark, which advises its readers that: Non-Americans can't, by law, give money to any particular candidate's campaign. But we can support pro-democracy, progressive American organizations like MoveOn.Org, which do their best to spread the ugly truth about Bush and publicize the Democratic message. Wink, wink ... nudge, nudge.

The Drudge Report goes on to report that the Web site links to MoveOn.Org for the purpose of making contributions, and that the top referrer to that Web site is the Official Clark for President Web site. It should be noted that the CanadaForClark Web site asserts that: "This site is not affiliated in any way with the official Clark campaign." But, of course, the official campaign Web site links to the "not affiliated" Web site.

Until this moment I am not aware of any major presidential campaign that has ever actually publicly assisted in raising foreign money to influence an American election. Of course, former President Clinton tried to raise illegal Chinese campaign money in his 1996 re-election campaign. But he had the practical political good sense to do it in secret, and to deny it when it was made public.

Donate to JWR

But retired four-star General Wesley Clark, the former Supreme Allied Commander of NATO (and first in his class at West Point), apparently is blithe to be seen trying to taint an American presidential election with foreign money.

Whatever the legality of these methods turns out to be, it is stunning that a major candidate for president would think nothing of being seen to raise foreign money. This lack of judgment is only compounded by the fact that we are at war, and the money is being solicited by the foreigners expressly to try to stop President Bush from carrying out our war on terrorism.

Americans, of course, have the right to contribute to an election effort to defeat an American president during wartime. But if it is not yet against the law, then it should be made soon to bar even a single foreign dollar from influencing an American presidential election — whether directly or indirectly. Should Osama bin Laden be permitted to buy television advertising intended to defeat President Bush in the election?

Just last month, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld Congress's authority to limit political contributions from American corporations on the grounds that there are "important governmental interests in preventing both the actual corruption threatened by large financial contributions and the eroding of public confidence in the electoral process through the appearance of corruption."

If Congress can limit or bar Americans from contributing to presidential election campaigns, surely it has the authority to bar foreigners — particularly supporters of the enemy in time of war. Keep in mind, last year's campaign finance law also barred issue advertising by Americans 60 days before an election. What would be an appropriate cut-off date for permitting terrorism supporting Saudi Princes or multi-billionaire international currency manipulators from buying advertising intended to manipulate American public opinion and bring down a president?

In an increasingly globalized world, with American influence (economic, military and cultural) inevitably affecting the rest of the world, it is predictable that the rest of the world will try to "have a vote" in our elections. Obviously much of the world (particularly Europe) no longer believes in its own sovereignty. Why should they respect ours? The good citizens of France have a voice in Paris and a voice in Brussels. Why not a voice in Washington, D.C?

It is inevitable that, unstopped, foreigners will try to influence our elections by buying political advertising here. So, too, it is inevitable that ambitious American politicians will — one way or the other — decide to ally themselves with those foreigners and their money against the formerly sovereign American political system. Wesley Clark is only the first of the type.

Every weekday publishes what many in Washington and in the media consider "must reading." Sign up for the daily JWR update. It's free. Just click here.

Tony Blankley is editorial page editor of The Washington Times. Comment by clicking here.

12/31/03: Make us laugh
12/24/03: War prophesies
12/17/03: Analyze this!
12/10/03: Until peace is ready to be negotiated
12/03/03: AFL-CIO meets Monty Python
11/26/03: Republicans need to learn from the Romans
11/19/03: All of a sudden we have a responsible media?
11/12/03: To arms
11/05/03: Mayor Mike's appetite for self-destructive accusations
10/29/03: A bloody march to peace
10/22/03: Calls for a general 's head because his comments may have ruffled the feathers of our esteemed enemies!?
10/08/03: The leakers' agony
10/01/03: Managing a scandal
09/24/03: Will we have to balance our strong ethical and religious revulsion of cloning against the danger of being surpassed by a gene-manipulated super-race?
09/17/03: The skinny on the First Ladies
09/10/03: More than cynicism will be needed to defeat prez
09/03/03: Dead Man Politickin'
08/27/03: Patience is not America's long suit
08/13/03: George Will's trifecta of punitive aspirations
07/30/03: A question for the candidates: Whose side are you on?
07/23/03: When GOPers attack their leader
07/17/03: Spanish fest mirrors U.S. elections
07/09/03: On the horns of a dilemma
06/25/03: The continuing deaths of American and British soldiers in Iraq should not be rhetorically minimized -- but sanctified
06/18/03: No reason to feel defensive about criticism of the war on terrorism
06/11/03: The Clintons — self-proclaimed geniuses — have no defense against the charge of cunning mendacity
06/04/03: George 'Machiavelli' Bush? Nah
05/28/03: When 'progressives' become reactionaries
05/21/03: Yes, this conservative is defending the NYTimes
05/14/03: Playing the politics of deflation
05/07/03: Only the stupid could think it'll be the economy: Comparing the Bushes 04/30/03: How to squelch increasing Iraqi distrust of America
04/25/03: Winning the war, losing the peace
04/16/03: Our own domestic Senate Republican Guard better be prepared for a grinding
04/03/03: At this human moment we need to act like humans, not just calculating analysts
04/02/03: If we could only draft Jennings' eyebrow to the cause, we wouldn't need the 4th Armored Division?
03/26/03: This war is showing the world who we really are
03/19/03: Time for America to laugh at itself
03/13/03: They're coming out of the woodwork: Russert, Buchanan and Moran
03/05/03: Franc-tireur
02/26/03: World history is shifting under our feet --- even our most experienced statesmen are, effectively, inexperienced
02/19/03: The shame! We've mischaracterized the French 02/12/03: Schroeder and Chirac will be disproportionately undercutting their interests
02/05/03: We need to rise above our temporary anger and seek to preserve our bonds with our European cousins
01/29/03: Who is President Bush's stupidest opponent: Saddam Hussein or Tom Daschle?
01/22/03: We call them our European cousins --- but I demand a DNA test
01/16/03: Dems bare partisan teeth
01/02/03: Before the cheering must come the struggle
12/27/02: Long ago and far away
12/18/02: Be glad that Gore's gone?
12/11/02: What fun! A titanic, once-in-a-century partisan battle royal is in the offing
12/04/02: Kerry atwitter
11/27/02: The unThankful list
11/20/02: First the scare, then the yawn
11/13/02: It's going to be a long two years for Lefty Pelosi and the Frisco Dems
11/06/02: Technology: A pollster's worst enemy --- thank goodness!
10/31/02: Watch this election's Wheel of Fate
10/23/02: The Ari and Colin Show: Politics has never been, well, more vaudeville-like
10/09/02: Bush beats drums of realism
10/02/02: Needed: A political chromatograph to detect any true statements in the public domain
09/25/02: Buchanan's new mag
09/18/02: There are many forms of peace
09/11/02: The imperial period of our history starts
09/04/02: Memo to Powell: In periods of upheaval, the refusal to act gives aid to those bent on destruction
08/30/02: Logging old growth is a sham issue

© 2002, Creators Syndicate