Larry Gold, a well-respected member of the campaign finance bar, has noticed and does not much care for the silence of certain reform organizations—and an uncustomary silence it is—in the face of questions about Senator’s McCain’s Presidential bank loan.  He has written a memo, posted by Rick Hasen, to call attention to the startling absence of comment from that corner.  His point is that these organizations have had long-standing relationships with McCain, working closely with him on legislative regulatory initiatives, and representing the Senator in Court, and perhaps they now feel obligated to keep to themselves any critical views of his conduct.  Mark Schmitt has written something like this, and so has Hasen, though more briefly and less tartly.

     No one has argued the case more forcefully than Gold.  He poses to these organizations a series of questions that, to understate the point, put them in an embarrassing position.  For years, the reform establishment has had a reliable trigger finger, shooting off press releases and calls for investigation at the slightest provocation.  These organizations’ effectiveness has depended in no small part on this mastery of confrontational PR.  Now, with McCain having to answer rather than ask the questions, there is silence. 

     It goes too far to say that a number of these reform outfits are favoring the McCain Presidential candidacy.  They are more, more than anything else, protecting themselves.  To a fault, they have invested heavily in the McCain asset base:  he has fought their fights, introduced their bills, promoted their regulatory agendas, helped them secure good press for this all.  After so great a dependence on him, the costs of his diminished luster on reform issues are also theirs to pay.

     It appears that these organizations are calculating that, by keeping their own counsel in the McCain matter, they will limit their costs.  Saying nothing now, on the Presidential bank loan (and Gold raises other recent questions), serves to reduce visibility of the charges and, conceivably, to contain them, raising the chance that they will more simmer in the back pages than blaze, red-hot, on the front page. 

     After all these years, in a sharp turn of the tables, these organizations are being asked to answer for a relationship with a politician that may have been too close, with too many favors traded, albeit for a cause that they all believed to be unimpeachably for the good.  Gold presses them hard on the question of “appearances.” 

     But these reform organizations are not stuck with this unappealing position.  They can still speak out, showing that their agenda is not dependent on McCain’s favor nor defined by his misfortunes.  If it was ever the case that they somehow needed McCain’s favor, it is not the case any more.  The McCain era in reform may be drawing to a close, and the true interest of these organizations lies in demonstrating their relevance to what comes next. 

     A closing note:  Hasen has noted that the Campaign Legal Center has been “closely tied” to McCain, and he has suggested that even with Trevor Potter’s leave to represent he McCain Presidential effort, “maybe CLC shouldn't be signing any letters to presidential candidates at this point.” 

     Why should it not?  If Potter has taken a bona fide leave, in part (one assumes) to maintain for the organization at least the appearance of impartiality, what would be the reason for it to take a pass on any question involving the Presidential campaign or Mr. McCain?  Withdrawal from Presidential campaign issues would suggest that Potter’s relationship to McCain continues to determine CLC's priorities or policy.  Or that CLC, even with Potter gone from the decision-making process, wishes to avoid possible offense to McCain.  Neither possibility would reflect well on CLC.

Bob Bauer