Warren Beatty sent a jolt into the American political community about a month ago when he first announced his possible candidacy for President of the United States. Even I, a diehard and proudly liberal democrat, found the concept of a Beatty candidacy to be a joke-at first.
After all, this is the man who has been a Hollywood-not Washington-insider for the past 40 years. And prior campaign experience with the Kennedy family or not, this is not a country that elects every celebrity and actor to offices like congressmen (Sonny Bono, Steve Largent) or governor (Ronald Reagan, Jesse "the Body" Ventura).
OK, so maybe we do go around electing celebrities to office, but what about his personal history? Beatty is the guy who once dated Madonna, Julie Christie and Faye Dunaway. He has been a tabloid star for as long as he was a Hollywood star. Americans don't want "the Hollywood lover" to serve as president. We don't elect philanderers to high office in America. Actors yes, but womanizers? Never.
And what about the Hollywood drug culture that dominated the film industry from the late 60s until the early 80s? Beatty was a Hollywood player during those times. Surely, someone who has possibly used hard drugs shouldn't be a serious contender for the presidency. You may be able to be the governor of the second-largest state with a past like that, but president?
In reality, Beatty has as much personal credibility as most of the current crop of presidential candidates. He has as much political experience as Pat Buchanan, Alan Keyes or Steve Forbes. He might have had a wild past, but with a majority of Americans supporting a former Yale fratboy for the presidency, Beatty's past is hardly disqualifying. In fact, besides their politics, publicity is the only difference between George W. Bush's past and Warren Beatty's. Beatty's past came to light when it was happening; Bush's is coming to light now.
But where Bush is presently waffling about the issues much like his father did, Beatty has articulated a policy stance that sets him apart from other presidential wannabes. Beatty, like Senators Bill Bradley and John McCain and Vice President Al Gore has articulated a clear vision about campaign finance reform. Bush has yet to articulate a stance on the issue; then again, I think Bush's $50 million campaign war chest speaks for itself.
In a guest column in The New York Times, Beatty called for an end to private financing of political campaigns. It is a theme that has been resonating ever since the wild abuses and near-complete disregard for campaign finance laws that took place in the 1996 elections. Beatty is correct in his stance that there is way too much money in politics. And most American people agree, but getting Congress to go along has not been easy.
Earlier this week, the United States House voted overwhelmingly to pass the Shays-Meehan campaign finance reform bill that would ban soft-money contributions to political campaigns. The problem is the house passed the same bill last year. And last year, as will likely happen again this year, a coalition of over 40 Republican senators held together to not allow a vote on a similar Senate bill.
Republicans claim that not allowing money to flow from special interests to campaign coffers is a violation of free speech. Who's speech is the GOP protecting? The answer is those with the most money. If speech is a reflection of how much you contribute to a campaign, then in essence the GOP is saying "money talks and money walks." I don't remember the part of the Constitution that said how much money you have determines how important your free speech is.
However, I do remember the part of the Constitution that discussed the illegality of taking bribes and how that is grounds for treason. The only difference between a campaign contribution and a bribe is that a bribe gets you five to 10 years, whereas a contribution gets you five to 10 congressmen.
According to Beatty's column, for "half the price of one movie ticket, per year, per person," we could have total public financing of political campaigns and free airtime for the candidates on the major television networks. That is a pittance of a fee to pay to eliminate the control that special interests and gigantic corporations have on today's policies and politicians.
Beatty is not a fully qualified candidate yet; he needs to articulate more policies before he proves that he is not just joking around. However, he is on the right track so far and is making other politicians own up to the ludicrous amounts of money they use to campaign. Beatty in 2000? The best answer to that question lies in Beatty's own words, "stay tuned."
Martin Barna is a Trinity sophomore, associate editorial page editor of The Chronicle and associate editor of TowerView.
Get The Chronicle straight to your inbox
Signup for our weekly newsletter. Cancel at any time.