Process
Status Items Highlights Done See section below Claims None Questions None Output None
Highlights
Time 0:16:03
Keating’s Bold Admission
- After Lincoln’s collapse, Common Cause urged investigation into the links between five senators and the savings and loan.
- Charles Keating’s donations to senators raised questions about influence.
- Keating openly admitted he hoped his donations bought favors from the senators.
- This bold statement amplified the scandal, involving prominent figures from both parties. Transcript: Speaker 1 And that delay may have had a little something to do with the pressure from Charles Keating’s five senators. In October 1989, Lincoln’s spectacular collapse prompted Common Cause, the same group that had been a thorn in Richard Nixon’s side, to push for more information. Speaker 2 Common Cause today asked the Senate Ethics Committee to investigate the links between five senators and a savings and loan that crashed earlier this year. Speaker 1 Keating certainly didn’t help his Senate pals defend themselves. When asked whether his donations bought senators’ favors, he replied, quote, I want to say in the most forceful way I can. I certainly hope so. Wow, the balls on that guy, screaming the quiet part out loud. The scandal was particularly huge because the accomplices included America’s seemingly squeaky clean golden
Time 0:21:07
McCain’s Campaign Finance Reform Mission
- John McCain, influenced by the Keating Five scandal, became a campaign finance reform advocate.
- His goal was to reclaim the government from special interests.
- The laws and court system had begun to legalize corruption.
- The Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA) was undermined by the master planners.
- The Supreme Court’s Buckley decision in 1976 constitutionally protected money as speech.
- The Baladi decision in 1978 gave corporations the same spending rights as people. Transcript: Speaker 1 Okay, put on your flannels and pop Nirvana into your CD player because we’re moving from the late 1980s and into the 1990s. John McCain, singed by the Keating Five scandal, has become Captain Campaign Finance Reform. His mission? Take back our government from the special interests. But how is he going to do that when the laws and the court system had already started to legalize corruption? This was an especially difficult question, considering how much the master planners had undermined the Federal Election Campaign Act, FICA. That landmark Watergate-era law had been limited by the Supreme Court’s Buckley decision in 1976, which said money was constitutionally protected speech. It was also limited by Lewis Powell’s Baladi decision in 1978, which said corporations have the same spending rights as people.
Time 0:33:50
McCain’s Reformer Image
- John McCain’s staff was unenthusiastic about him campaigning on corruption and money in politics.
- They believed this issue wouldn’t resonate with voters.
- McCain ignored their advice and focused on the “Iron Triangle”: special interests, campaign finance, and lobbying.
- In New Hampshire, his staff was surprised to see the public’s enthusiastic response to the issue.
- McCain’s reformer image really developed during that campaign due to public support. Transcript: Speaker 2 Here’s Trevor Potter again. Senator McCain continued to want to talk about corruption in Washington, money in politics, the importance of limits and transparency. And his staff were highly unenthusiastic, saying no one cares. This is your issue in Congress, but it will not resonate with voters on the campaign trail. They told him he should talk about the economy. But in true John McCain fashion, he’d made up his mind and he wasn’t going to let his staff deter him. Speaker 1 He was going to take on what he called the Iron Triangle. Special interests, campaign finance, and lobbying. Speaker 2 And so he got to New Hampshire where they have all these town hall meetings and you take lots of questions. And the staff was amazed to discover that this issue was really important to voters. They wanted to talk about
Time 0:37:50
Republicans for Clean Air
- Republicans for Clean Air was a phony organization created by Texas billionaires.
- The group ran ads showing belching smokestacks, falsely claiming John McCain favored pollution.
- They hid their identities while exploiting the independent expenditure loophole.
- These unregulated ads were funded by George W. Bush’s billionaire pals. Transcript: Speaker 2 Here’s Trevor Potter again. There was a group called Republicans for Clean Air that was a phony organization, a couple of Texas billionaires established an entity which then ran ads, pictures of belching smokestacks Saying that John McCain was in favor of pollution. Speaker 4 Last year, John McCain voted against solar and renewable energy. Speaker 2 And they tried to do this while hiding who they were. Speaker 1 These billionaires were using the so-called independent expenditure loophole that McCain had been railing against and the sham of it
Time 0:50:04
Presidential Caveats
- President George W. Bush signed the bipartisan campaign reform act into law but expressed reservations in the White House’s written press release.
- Bush raised First Amendment concerns regarding the restriction of individual freedoms and the constitutionality of the ban on issue advertising.
- His statement mirrors President Gerald Ford’s reservations when signing the Federal Election Campaign Act amendments after Watergate.
- Both presidents signed the legislation while signaling potential constitutional issues, suggesting a pattern of reluctant acceptance of campaign finance reforms. Transcript: Speaker 1 But at the end, there’s a caveat. Since he didn’t make an actual speech, listen to our very bad George W. Bush impersonator read the key passage. Speaker 3 When individual freedoms are restricted, questions arise under the First Amendment. I also have reservations about the constitutionality of the broadband on issue advertising. I expect that the courts will resolve these legitimate legal questions as appropriate under the law. Huh, why does this sound so familiar? Speaker 1 Oh yeah, here it is, here it is. Remember back in 1974 when President Gerald Ford was basically forced into signing the Federal Election Campaign Act amendments after Watergate?
Time 0:51:56
Crafting Legislative History
- Roger Whitten, a Watergate prosecutor, teamed up with John McCain and Russ Feingold to defend the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (BCRA) in court.
- Whitten knew that judges consider lawmakers’ statements during a bill’s passage.
- They strategically wrote speeches for senators and congressmen to create a favorable legislative record, providing facts and evidence to support the law.
- Whitten would meet with McCain during his lunch breaks, where McCain ate a bacon-less tomato sandwich with salt. Transcript: Speaker 1 This was all familiar to Roger Whitten, the Watergate prosecutor who we heard from in episode 2. Whitten knew that judges look at what lawmakers were saying about the bill when it passed, so he teamed up with McCain and Feingold to create ammunition that would defend it in court. Here’s Whitten explaining the strategy. Speaker 3 We beefed up the legislative history by writing speeches for the senators and congressmen to give, which would put into the record facts that we thought we would want to rely on in the Court litigation. And we provided materials and studies and polling and other evidence to bolster the legislative record. Speaker 1 As they constructed their defense of the new law, Whitten would sometimes meet with Senator McCain in his chambers while he was on his lunch break. Speaker 3 It was always the same lunch, bacon less than tomato sandwich, which he salted. I don’t know. The only person I know who salts bacon. And he’d concentrate very hard for 15 or 20, 25 minutes, whatever it took. Speaker 1 And we were off. Whitten and McCain knew McConnell’s assault in the court would rehash the same old tune that the master planners had been calling since the days of Buckley v. Vallejo. Speaker 3 Basically, their pitch was money is speech, and this law restricts money, and so it restricts speech, and so the First Amendment frowns on it. Speaker 1 The court battle felt like the NBA playoffs