==================================================================
Published by INEWS. Freely distributable if unaltered and complete. 
See end of document for info on free E-mail trial of INEWS.
INTERNATIONAL NEWS E-WIRE SERVICE All rights reserved. For 
information on receiving a free trial subscription to INEWS 
World News Daily via E-mail send E-mail to INEWS@AOL.COM
WORLD WIDE WEB: http://members.aol.com/inewscirc/inews.html
==================================================================

DISTRIBUTE FREELY

                        '96 ELECTION SNAPSHOT
                               VOL.1 #12


SUBSCRIPTION INFO/GENERAL INFO - INEWS@AOL.COM
TO REACH EDITOR ---------------- INEWSEDIT@AOL.COM


CONTENTS:
   CAMPAIGN '96 STATUS REPORT
   DOLE ACCUSES CLINTON OF FILING FEDERAL COURTS WITH LIBERAL JUDGES
   DOLE USES MAJORITY PLATFORM TO COUNTER CLINTON INCUMBENCY ADVANTAGE
   BROADCAST NETWORKS ASKED TO GIVE CANDIDATES FREE AIR TIME
   SENATE TO INVESTIGATE CLINTON ALLOWING IRAN TO ARM BOSNIA MUSLIMS
   GINGRICH ON ADMINISTRATION BOSNIA-IRAN ARMS ACTIONS
   BUCHANAN SAYS CHINA SHOULD LOSE MOST FAVORED NATION TRADING STATUS
   TIGHTENING OF CONGRESSIONAL ETHICS
   MOTHER JONES ISSUE TARGETS TOBACCO INDUSTRY POLITICS
   THIS WEEK ON THE CAMPAIGN TRAIL
   MCLAUGHLIN SEES DOLE WITH STRONGER ELECTORAL COLLEGE VOTE
   FOREIGN POLICY IS GOOD NEWS/BAD NEWS PROPOSITION FOR CLINTON
   ADDITIONAL VICE PRESIDENTIAL RUNNING MATES DISCUSSED
   IMPORTANCE OF CATHOLIC VOTE IN U.S. GROWS
   HISPANIC AMERICAN LEADER SAYS VOTING VITAL TO ADVANCE RIGHTS
   THREE MORE MEMBERS OF CONGRESS DEPARTING
   PUNDIT PEARLS
   CAMPAIGN '96: FOREIGN POLICY
   BUSH DECLARES SUPPORT FOR DOLE
   ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES AND CAMPAIGN '96
   SUPREME COURT HEARS CAMPAIGN FINANCE CASE
   TAX FREEDOM DAY: MAY 7TH
   FREE OFFER FROM PUBLISHER
   =========================
   ---------------
   CAMPAIGN '96 STATUS REPORT

   JIM MALONE
   WASHINGTON

   Although it means little at this point, the U.S. presidential
primaries resume next Tuesday with voting in Pennsylvania.
Republican contender Pat Buchanan says he will not contest the
presumed nominee, Senator Bob Dole, in that state. But he also
says he is not ruling out a third party bid for the White House
depending on his treatment at the Republican convention.
   Pat Buchanan says rumors that he is quitting the presidential
race are greatly exaggerated. He told a Washington news
conference he does not want to do any more political damage to
the Dole campaign and has decided against actively campaigning
for next week's Pennsylvania primary.
   But at the same time, Mr. Buchanan is eager to maximize his
political leverage. He wants the Republican Party to stand firm
in its opposition to abortion and he will continue to push for a
strong Conservative Party platform at the August convention.
   Pat Buchanan is downplaying the likelihood he will bolt the
Republican party and make an independent run for the White House.
But he refuses to rule it out, recalling the wishes of a
supporter he met recently in Missouri:
   "And one woman came up to me and said, you owe it to us to let
us vote for you in the fall (the November election). You owe that
to us. And there was a real sense of despair among many of my
people about the choice they are being offered."
   The Dole campaign appears to be more focused on Bill Clinton
than Pat Buchanan. Senator Dole wants to run his campaign from
the floor of the U.S. Senate over the next few months, passing
legislation which will demonstrate his political differences with
President Clinton.
   But that strategy may be more risky than he thinks. Norman
Ornstein watches the presidential election from the American
enterprise institute here in Washington. He says the Democratic
minority in the Senate will have ample opportunity to try and
embarrass Mr. Dole and the Republicans. They tried to do it this
week with a proposal to increase the minimum wage, something
which is politically popular but which most Republicans oppose:
   "Bob Dole wanted to bring up the immigration (reform) bill.
Bring it up, get it voted on, get it passed, take that tough
line. Show that he could do things. And the Senate Democrats, in
effect, held him hostage, saying they would bring up the minimum
wage (a bill to increase it which most Republicans oppose) which
they can do under the rules of the Senate. Rules that Bob Dole
brilliantly exploited when he was in the minority and which are
now being turned against him."
   President Clinton continues to ride high in public opinion
polls even though the election is still more than six months
away. In fact the president is busy telling aides not to get
overconfident.
   The Clinton camp hopes to maintain its advantage by continuing
to cast the Republican-controlled Congress as too extreme.
William Schneider is another political analyst with the American
Enterprise Institute. He says the Republican-controlled congress
is now paying a political price for being too ambitious after
Republicans won control of Congress in the 1994 midterm
elections:
   "Gingrich and the Republican Congress have moved so far to the
right that they have ceded the (political) center to President
Clinton. And that has had interesting and very significant
impact. He is facing no backlash from Democrats. The Republican
congress has scared Democrats so badly that when the president
talks about values, tax cuts, welfare reform, balancing the
budget, the response he gets from Democrats is, we can live with
that."
   Mr. Clinton is the first democratic president since Franklin
Roosevelt who does not have to worry about a challenge to his
re-election from within his own party. That may bode well for his
chances in November. Presidents Nixon and Reagan faced no serious
primary opposition and cruised to re-election victories against
their democratic opponents. Presidents Carter and bush both faced
challenges from within their own party which exposed their
political weaknesses and in some ways foreshadowed their defeats
in the general election.
   ---------------

   ---------------
   DOLE ACCUSES CLINTON OF FILING FEDERAL COURTS WITH LIBERAL JUDGES

   DAVID SWAN
   SENATE

   U.S. senator and presidential candidate Bob Dole has accused
President Clinton of filling American courts with liberal judges,
who are partly to blame for the country's crime problem.
   In a Washington speech Friday, Mr. Dole previewed what may be
a major theme in this year's election, the nation's continuing
fear of violent crime. This was a crucial and controversial part
of President Bush's successful campaign in 1988. Mr. Dole is
telling voters the problem is out of control:
   "No society that considers itself civilized can accept an
annual death toll of almost 24,000 murders, an annual death toll
of almost 24,000 murders."
   The senator focused his attack on federal judges appointed by
his rival, or as he put it, a judicial hall of shame. He read a
litany of jurists he denounced as unfit for allegedly placing the
rights of criminals above those of victims. In one
highly-publicized case, which the president has also criticized,
one of these judges dismissed as evidence some 36 kilograms of
drugs in a suspect's car:
   "Seventy-five pounds of cocaine and four pounds of heroin.
Four-million dollars worth of poisonous drugs. He even suppressed
the defendant's voluntary confession."
   Mr. Dole says judges should be independent but are not above
criticism. He also warned voters the country could change
profoundly if the president names more liberal justices to the
Supreme Court:
   "And the social landscape could be dramatically changed. More
federal intrusion into the lives of average Americans, more
centralized power in Washington, less freedom of religious
expression, more rights for criminals and more arrogant disregard
of the rights of law-abiding citizens."
   The White House points out that Mr. Dole did not oppose many
of the president's judicial appointments in the Senate.
Meanwhile, he did fight the government's ban on assault-style
weapons.
   ---------------

   ---------------
   DOLE USES MAJORITY PLATFORM TO COUNTER CLINTON INCUMBENCY ADVANTAGE

   DAVID SWAN
   SENATE

   The American presidential race is being run mostly in
Washington for now, as President Clinton and Republican Bob Dole
fight over issues and legislation. Mr. Dole hopes to use his
Senate post to counter his rival's advantage of being the
incumbent. The idea also has pitfalls.
   Mr. Dole says he will not step down as Senate majority leader
to be a conventional, full-time candidate. Instead, he is using
the Senate as a platform in a bid to show voters he can take
charge and get things done. This is much like the so-called "rose
garden strategy" employed by sitting presidents in election
years. For Mr. Dole, it has yielded decidedly mixed results.
   Wednesday, he took the offensive on foreign policy. He
announced the senate would investigate the president's decision
to approve secret Iranian weapon shipments to Bosnian Muslims
through Croatia. Mr. Dole accused Mr. Clinton of duplicity for
allowing this to go on while publicly backing an arms embargo:
   "And that's what this examination and these hearings will be
about. Because I think we owe it to the American people and owe
it to members of Congress who, as far as I know, no one knew
about what was happening. We were told we just couldn't lift the
arms embargo because of all the problems it would create."
   The next day, the issue was health care, the president's first
priority on taking office and one of his worst political setbacks
two years ago. Mr. Dole put forth an amendment to a new health
insurance bill, saying his proposal would succeed where the White
House failed:
   "So thanks to the American people and Republican leadership,
the Clinton era of big government health care is over. It never
began."
   But the Dole health care era got off to a rocky start. The
senate unexpectedly killed a key provision of his plan, with five
Republicans joining Democrats in voting it down. Afterward,
vice-President Gore pointed out the leader's majority was less
than solid:
   "I also want to commend the small but decisive number of
Republican senators who joined with the Democrats in a bipartisan
majority to strip out of this important legislation a terrible
provision."
   Health care is not mr. Dole's only problem. He was forced to
set aside immigration reform, one of his party's major issues,
when Democrats tried to use the bill as a vehicle for their
priorities. This includes a hike in the nation's minimum wage,
which Republicans have long resisted on the grounds it would be
too costly to business and would throw people out of work.
   Now, in an election year, some Republicans are breaking ranks
and Mr. Dole has indicated he may let the question reach the
Senate floor after all. Minority leader Tom Daschle says he
should schedule a vote soon because Democrats will not let the
matter go away:
   "This amendment will pass. There is no doubt in my mind, this
Congress will pass minimum wage legislation."
   Mr. Dole still has a few months to move his party's agenda
through the House and Senate. But the results may be far less
dramatic than Republicans expected last year when they took over
Congress, and this year when they picked Senator Dole to run for
president.
   ---------------

   ---------------
   BROADCAST NETWORKS ASKED TO GIVE CANDIDATES FREE AIR TIME

   DAVID PITTS
   Washington

   The "Free TV for Straight Talk Coalition" April 18 sent
letters to America's national television networks urging them to
offer free air time for the presidential candidates in this
fall's general election.
   To mark the formal kickoff of the campaign, the coalition,
which is backed by influential members of Congress from both
major political parties as well as a number of public interest
groups, also took out a full-page advertisement in the New York
Times.
   Coalition director Paul Taylor, a former Washington Post
reporter, said there is a need for meaningful campaign debate on
television instead of just 30-second advertisements. "No tricky
images, no unseen narrators, no journalists, no surrogates, just
the candidates making their best case to the biggest audience
America assembles every night," Taylor said.
   Republican Senator John McCain of Arizona said the coalition's
effort is nonpartisan and is backed by many lawmakers. "We're
tired of thirty-second attack ads poisoning the public debate,"
he remarked. Democratic Senator Bill Bradley of New Jersey also
praised the effort, saying it would help revive the people's
faith in democracy.
   Specifically, the coalition is recommending that the networks
provide between two and five minutes every night for the final
month of the fall campaign, ideally "roadblocked," that is, shown
simultaneously on all commercial networks, PBS and interested
cable stations. The time would be rotated among the major
presidential candidates. The contenders would have to appear and
speak on-screen themselves with no background footage or
narration.
   Thus far, the three major networks have been cool to the
proposal. But Fox Television, the so-called fourth network, has
announced a unilateral decision to offer free air time to
candidates. Taylor said the coalition's recommendations are not
"set in stone" and "We're open to modification of this proposal.
The most important thing is to establish the precedent of free
prime time air time for straight talk from the candidates."
   In addition to lawmakers and public interest group support,
the coalition also has the backing of former influential CBS
anchorman Walter Cronkite; Frank Fahrenkopf, former chairman of
the Republican National Committee; and Chuck Manatt, former
chairman of the Democratic National Committee.
   "Free television is a fair and simple way to raise the quality
and lower the incivility of political campaigns in America," said
Fahrenkopf. "This is a simple, practical step to enhance both the
public discourse and voter involvement," said Manatt.
   In total, there were 77 signatories to the open letter to the
networks. They included entertainment celebrities as well as
prominent electronic journalists and politicians.
   Coalition spokespersons made clear that they are urging the
networks to provide free air time voluntarily. They are not
calling for government intervention to try to compel the
networks, which likely would be unconstitutional in any case.
   ---------------

   ---------------
   SENATE TO INVESTIGATE CLINTON ALLOWING IRAN TO ARM BOSNIA MUSLIMS

   DAVID SWAN
   SENATE

   The U.S. Senate will investigate President Clinton's decision
to let Iran supply weapons to Bosnian Muslims despite the global
arms embargo on former Yugoslavia.
   Senate Republican leader and presidential candidate Bob Dole
says the intelligence and foreign relations committees will hold
hearings on the policy. The controversy erupted when it was
learned the White House gave tacit, quiet approval for weapons to
flow to Bosnian troops through Croatia, starting in 1994.
   Mr. Dole and other lawmakers supported the idea of helping
Bosnia fight the war. But he says it should not have been done in
secret:
   "And finally, had we lifted the arms embargo on Bosnia, the
United States would have done the right thing for the right
reason. And we'd have done it openly and honestly. And that's
what this examination and these hearings will be about."
   Mr. Clinton argues he did nothing wrong by not pushing
Croatian President Tudjman to block the arms traffic. The
administration maintains it was not directly involved in the
shipments and thus did not violate the U.N. embargo, which it
publicly supported.
   Officials also say Congress knew about the effort all along
and did not object. Senator Dole says he was never told the
United States approved the plan:
   "This duplicitous policy has seriously damaged our credibility
with our allies. It has also produced one of the most serious
threats to our military forces in Bosnia, and according to the
administration, the main obstacle to the arm-and-train program
for the Bosnians, I am talking about the presence of Iranian
military forces and intelligence officials in Bosnia."
   The White House has so far refused to give Congress an
internal report on the policy. The administration must now
prepare to defend its decisions in public, in the midst of an
election campaign.
   ---------------

   ---------------
   GINGRICH ON ADMINISTRATION BOSNIA-IRAN ARMS ACTIONS

   PAULA WOLFSON
   CONGRESS

   There has been no announcement about hearings in the U.S.
House of Representatives on the Clinton Administration's actions
regarding Iranian arms shipments to Bosnia. The House Republican
leadership is leaving no doubt it is angry with the White House.
   So far, most of the information reaching the American public
about the arms shipments has come in the form of reports in U.S.
newspapers.
   House speaker Newt Gingrich has been keeping a close watch on
those reports, especially those detailing President Clinton's
decision to look the other way while the arms were making their
way to Bosnia. And the speaker is furious.
   During an appearance before a convention of newspaper editors,
Mr. Gingrich quoted extensively from an article in the New York
Times. The article, based on anonymous sources, provided a sketch
of the diplomatic back-and-forth that accompanied the 1994
decision to do nothing about the arms shipments:
   "This one (this article) is particularly good at two levels.
One, for what it tells us about the Clinton Administration's, I
think, extraordinarily unstructured and unprofessional foreign
policy system. And the other is, for what it tells us about their
lack of thinking through the implications."
   The speaker said at the same time the White House was sending
out signals to Croatia about the Iranian arms shipments, a very
different message was going to congressional leaders:
   "The administration is openly, publicly telling Dole and me
and everybody else 'oh, we would like to lift the embargo to
Bosnia but we can't lift the embargo because the European allies
won't let us lift the embargo, so we have to keep the embargo'"
   He said the administration obviously believed it could keep
the decision to tolerate the arms shipments a secret. Mr.
Gingrich called that assumption wrong and dangerous, overlooking
the threat posed by Iran:
   "The fact (is) that here you have a state very much outside
our system, a state actively trying to get weapons of mass
destruction, a state actively trying to get missile capability,
clearly the greatest threat to Israel's survival and a state
which is actively promoting state sponsored terrorism around the
world. And to have an administration deceive the Congress,
deceive its allies, invite Iran into Europe, undermines all of
our policies in the Middle East."
   Mr. Gingrich said the United States will now have a tough time
convincing other countries to shy away from any dealings with the
Iranians:
   "How do you go to the Jordanians and the Lebanese and say
"'lease don't allow the Iranians in your country...it is okay in
Bosnia but they are really dangerous in your country.' How do you
say to the Germans 'please don't deal with the Iranians', hey are
okay in Europe, but you shouldn't sell them anything."
   The speaker seemed particularly incensed about the
administration's refusal to provide Congress with documents
relating to an internal probe of its Bosnia arms policy. He said
the White House is trying to stop an investigation.
   ---------------

   ---------------
   BUCHANAN SAYS CHINA SHOULD LOSE MOST FAVORED NATION TRADING STATUS

   JIM MALONE
   WASHINGTON

   Republican presidential candidate Pat Buchanan is urging that
the United States cancel its most favored nation trading status
for China. Mr. Buchanan told a Washington news conference
Wednesday that Beijing's alleged human rights violations and
recent military exercises aimed at intimidating Taiwan have made
China into what he calls a noxious, neighborhood bully. Mr.
Buchanan also denied reports that he is dropping out of the race
for the Republican presidential nomination.
   Pat Buchanan says Republicans in Congress must decide which is
more important, fighting tyranny or supporting free trade. Mr.
Buchanan is calling on Congress to block a renewal of China's
most favored nation trading status. President Clinton must inform
the Congress as to whether he will renew MFN for China by early
June.
   At his news conference, Mr. Buchanan slammed China for its
human rights record, its use of slave labor to produce exports,
and China's recent military exercises near Taiwan:
   "I think we have to stop babying (coddling) this regime. It is
not some lovable, wayward child that merely needs indulgence and
affection. We have to treat China as what she has become. China
is a great power, the greatest military power in Asia. She is
belligerent, arbitrary and capricious, and she has acted
repeatedly hostile to American interests. And we simple ought to
treat her as what she has become, potentially, China is the
biggest rogue nation on earth."
   Mr. Buchanan says China's conduct warrants an across-the-board
U.S. embargo of Chinese goods. But he says for the moment he
would settle for cancelling most favored nation trading status.
   Mr. Buchanan also denied reports that he is quitting the race
for the Republican presidential nomination. Senator Bob Dole has
built up what even Mr. Buchanan concedes is an insurmountable
lead in delegates. And Mr. Buchanan says he will not challenge
Mr. Dole in next week's Pennsylvania primary, to show that he has
no interest in doing political damage to the Dole campaign.
   But Mr. Buchanan is not closing the door just yet on a
possible third party bid in the fall campaign, saying all of that
depends on how he and his supporters are treated at the
Republican convention in August:
   "If we are going to have two interventionist parties
(internationally), two globalist parties, two free trade uber
alles parties (German for free trade above all) and two parties
dedicated to building some utopian new world order and two
parties that are moving pro-choice (on abortion), etcetera, then
that vacuum will call into being some new institution (a third
party)."
   But Mr. Buchanan also quickly added that each week that goes
by makes it more difficult that he could launch an effective
third party bid. Mr. Buchanan is sending out letters to 140,000
supporters and contributors next week asking them what he should
do.
   ---------------

   ---------------
   TIGHTENING OF CONGRESSIONAL ETHICS

   MARILYN SILVEY
   WASHINGTON

   In the United States, a powerful former congressman, Dan
Rostenkowski, was recently sentenced to 17 months in prison and
fined 100,000 dollars for using public funds to pay employees who
did little or no work, and to buy personal gifts. His offenses
might have been overlooked a few years ago. But now Congress is
tightening the ethics laws for its own members.
   The newest addition to the congressional ethics code is so
strict that when a member of the House of Representatives and his
wife recently had dinner at the home of an old friend, a former
congressman who is now a lobbyist, the current congressman
insisted on paying his host for the meal! He was very afraid that
the event would be discovered by the press, and he might be
reported for violating the new law that bans all gifts.
   A few years ago, most U.S. Congressmen would have laughed at
such an action. They don't any longer. Jack Maskell (pron.
mas-kell), an analyst with the Congressional Research Service,
explains that the new law is quite restrictive, and ends the free
gifts, meals and trips that members of Congress long enjoyed:
   "The House completely banned all gifts to members, of any
amount. The Senate went along, they banned most gifts, anything
under $50 would be permitted. So you have very, very strict rules
now on gifts, on outside earned income by members of Congress,
you have very tight restrictions on investment disclosure, they
have to disclose all of their assets, and you have rules on
campaign financing and campaign contributions."
   Under the new rules, a member of Congress may not hold any
type of second job, and is no longer allowed to accept money from
organizations for making speeches or writing articles. The
disclosure rules require a complete public accounting of who paid
what expenses of a congressman's trip. The gift bans and
disclosure rules even extend to legislators' spouses and chief
aides.
   Mr. Maskell says the emphasis on Congress policing its own
members is relatively new. The country's founding fathers, who
wrote the U.S. constitution in the late 1700s, believed the best
regulator of ethical conduct to be frequent elections. Congress
still has that philosophy, Mr. Maskell says, but beginning in the
mid-1800s, continual public outcry over congressional scandals,
usually involving money, has led to Congress policing itself with
increasingly tighter laws. But significant change didn't occur
until the 1900s:
   "People ask me, 'are there more ethics violations now than
there used to be, say, 50 years ago?' and the answer is yes. The
simple reason is there are more ethical codes, more ethical
standards and more laws. You never even had an ethics committee
in the House (of Representatives) or the Senate until the 1960s.
We've seen congress adopt more and more ethical standards, more
and more laws regarding (restricting) outside income and outside
employment, more and more internal rules of the house and the
senate on ethical standards of conduct, in response to the
public's interest."
   The chief way the public finds out about legislative
wrongdoing is through the media, whose role has become more
powerful since the Watergate scandal of 1972 that brought about
the resignation of President Nixon. A candidate running against a
congressman will also publicize any charges of irregularities
against his opponent. In addition, there are a number of
not-for-profit public interest groups, funded by foundations and
individuals, that closely watch Congress and government officials
in the executive branch and report on any instances of scandal.
And Jack Maskell says individual constituents are not shy about
letting their congressman know if they are upset:
   "A member of Congress will send out a questionnaire to his
electorate and ask their opinion on various issues. They were
coming back showing there was a strong desire to hold their
elected officials accountable to very strict ethical standards."
   Expulsion is the ultimate sanction, but historically, few
members have been actually expelled from the Congress: Only 15
senators and four members of the House of Representatives, with
just one of the 19 occurring in this century. Most congressmen,
so far, there have been no women, who are censured (reprimanded)
by their colleagues resign to avoid further punishment. Milder
forms of discipline include denying a senator or representative
the right to vote on the floor or in committee, and removing him
as chairman of a committee.
   Critics say that in spite of increasingly strong ethics laws,
there are still loopholes. They point out that the new ban on
gifts, for instance, still allows congressmen to accept free
meals at a "widely attended event," and allows a private group to
pay the travel expenses of congressmen as long as the travel is
connected to "official duties." And the ethics laws do nothing to
limit large contributions by organizations to congressional
campaigns.
   But Meredith Mcgehee, legislative director of the citizens'
lobby organization "Common Cause," says that the new requirements
are important, especially of prompt, public, written disclosure
by congressmen, telling who actually paid for what. And she says
there are definite indications that the ban on gifts is having
some effect:
   "I think you're seeing a great difference already. We're
seeing restaurants that are going out of business, supposedly,
this was big business here in Washington, wining and dining
members of Congress and staff. This is really changing that. I
actually think Congress often doesn't get credit, and in this
instance, this is a case where they should get credit for having
done the right thing."
   Ms. McGehee agrees that the increasingly-strict laws, which
she calls way overdue, show that Congress is indeed listening to
the public's demands for more open and honest government.
   ---------------

   ---------------
   MOTHER JONES ISSUE TARGETS TOBACCO INDUSTRY POLITICS

   ART CHIMES
   WASHINGTON

   A magazine noted for its investigative reports and its
progressive politics is out with a new issue that includes a
series of articles critical of the U.S. tobacco industry and its
relations with politicians. The magazine suggests political
contributions have helped tobacco companies expand into
international markets.
   Tobacco is under fire in the United States. The federal
government is considering regulating cigarettes as a
drug-delivery system. Many American smokers give up the habit,
and more than 400,000 die of cigarette-related illnesses each
year. And restrictions on smoking in public places get tighter
and tighter.
   San Francisco-based "Mother Jones" magazine says the industry
is fighting back on a number of fronts. It is mounting a public
relations battle, pressuring news organizations to prevent
critical reports, and going to court in some cases to sue news
organizations that do not give in to pressure. And the industry
has given vast sums of money to candidates in state and national
elections. Mother Jones editor Jeffrey Klein says right now the
industry is focused on November's elections for Congress and the
White House:
   "No industry in this country has a larger stake in this
election than tobacco, and no special interest has gone to
greater lengths to hide its strategy."
   Mother Jones says tobacco companies are working hard for
President Clinton's presumed Republican challenger, Kansas
Senator Bob Dole. The magazine cites hundreds of thousands of
dollars in tobacco campaign contributions, plus a number of Dole
advisors and political workers with links to the tobacco
industry.
   At a Mother Jones news conference, California Democratic
Congressman Henry Waxman told reporters that politicians should
have nothing to do with the tobacco industry:
   "I support the idea that there's no reason in the world why
anybody in politics ought to be taking money from the tobacco
industry. There should be no occasion when a politician who cares
about the public interest will find themselves supporting the
tobacco industry."
   A spokesman for the industry-sponsored "Tobacco Institute,"
Tom Lauria, rejects Congressman Waxman's idea that tobacco money
has no place in politics:
   "We have a 50-million person adult customer base in the United
States, tens of millions of Americans hold tobacco company stock.
We are as legitimate an industry as possible. Henry Waxman's in a
dream world to pretend otherwise. How dare he infer that we can't
participate in the political process, that our vote, our opinion,
our money is somehow less valuable than anybody elses."
   Mr. Lauria also criticized the Mother Jones articles as
one-sided. He said he and other industry spokesmen were
interviewed, but the magazine did not include their views.
   As Mr. Lauria says, major cigarette companies consider it
completely legitimate to contribute to politicians. And, like
many other contributors, they expect to get something in return.
   Mother Jones editor Jeffrey Kline says that in 1987, Senator
Dole and Senator Jesse Helms, from the tobacco-growing state of
North Carolina, agreed to take favorable action on a bill that
would have hurt textile imports from South Korea:
   "And in return for this Korea agreed to open up its markets to
American tobacco. Now, the evil part of this is, not only did
they open the markets to American tobacco, but also we shoved
American marketing techniques into Korea, Thailand, Taiwan,
Japan, Hong Kong and so on. That meant TV commercials that are
banned here, that's the dumping that I'm talking about."
   American cigarette companies are under a lot of domestic
pressure so, in recent years, they have been expanding
aggressively into foreign markets. The Marlboro cowboy is one of
the world's best-known corporate symbols. Tobacco companies'
political clout has helped them penetrate overseas markets.
   Mother Jones released a videotape of a documentary prepared in
1994 for the television newsmagazine "Turning Point." The ABC
network never broadcast the story. Mother Jones says the
cancellation came the same day that Philip Morris filed a lawsuit
against the network.
   The videotape includes an interview with President Reagan's
Surgeon General, Dr. C. Everett Koop, who is an outspoken
opponent of smoking. In the interview he said that before Mr.
Reagan was inaugurated, the chief executive of tobacco giant R.J.
Reynolds wrote the president-elect saying they hoped that he
would not be too tough on the tobacco industry:
   "And the president wrote back, I don't know who wrote the
letter for him, but I could hardly believe it when I eventually
read it: My administration will be too busy with more important
things."
   If Mother Jones magazine has it right, that is exactly the
attitude that the tobacco industry hopes will prevail if their
preferred candidate, Bob Dole, wins the presidential election.
   ---------------

   ---------------
   THIS WEEK ON THE CAMPAIGN TRAIL
   By Stuart Gorin

   -- PENNSYLVANIA PRIMARY

   The U.S. primary election season resumes with an April 23
contest in Pennsylvania, but the focus will be on two of the 21
House of Representatives races, since the presidential balloting
is no longer consequential and there are no battles in the state
for the Senate or governor this year.
   In the House contests, younger rivals are challenging veteran
state legislators to succeed retiring Republican congressmen
Robert Walker and William Clinger. Neither has endorsed a
successor.
   The fight for presidential convention delegates in
Pennsylvania has been lessened by President Clinton and Senate
Majority Leader Bob Dole already attaining more than the number
needed to gain their respective nominations, but Dole,
especially, still needs a strong victory to show the rest of the
nation his viability.
   Therefore, in the company of Pennsylvania's Governor Tom Ridge
and Senators Arlen Specter and Rick Santorum, Dole made several
campaign stops in the state, which he said will be a
"battleground" in November.
   Conservative commentator Pat Buchanan, who says he remains in
the race even though he knows Dole has enough convention
delegates to be assured the Republican nomination, decided not to
campaign in Pennsylvania. But his campaign manager, sister Bay
Buchanan, disputed news reports that he was dropping out. Bay
Buchanan said her brother was writing letters to his supporters
asking their advice as to whether or not he should mount a
third-party campaign.


   -- MISSOURI CAUCUS

   Meanwhile, Dole gained 14 more convention delegates over the
weekend from congressional district meetings held in Missouri.
Buchanan came in second, winning 11 convention delegates.


   -- MARY MATALIN

   And Dole received a lot of publicity he didn't plan on when
Republican political strategist Mary Matalin, who married
Democratic strategist James Carville after their intense rivalry
during the 1992 presidential race, joined his campaign as a
senior adviser -- but quit two days later, charging critics of
her action with sexism.
   A number of Republican officials, including the chairmen of
several state parties, said Matalin's role in the campaign would
be a diversion that Dole does not need. Matalin is considered a
traitor to the party in some quarters even though she has stated
repeatedly that she and Carville, who orchestrated President
Clinton's victory, "don't talk politics."
   According to syndicated columnist Tony Snow, "the episode
offers a ripe example of Republicans' penchant for
self-destruction" and "robs Mr. Dole not only of a talented aide,
but also a means for contrasting a Democratic candidate who talks
about respecting women with a Republican who actually does it."


   -- INCOME TAX RETURNS

   April 15 was income tax deadline day in the United States and
the Doles and the Clintons have each made public a copy of their
tax returns. Dole and his wife, Elizabeth, who serves as
president of the American Red Cross, reported joint earnings of
$583,869 in 1995, donated $57,603 to charity and paid taxes of
$136,848. Clinton and his wife, Hillary, reported $316,074 in
earnings, $30,310 given to charity, and $75,437 paid in taxes.
   ---------------

   ---------------
   MCLAUGHLIN SEES DOLE WITH STRONGER ELECTORAL COLLEGE VOTE

   Even though public opinion polls show today that President
Clinton would defeat Bob Dole by a popular vote landslide (58-34
percent), an analysis of the last two presidential elections
shows a much stronger Electoral College vote for the Senate
majority leader, according to veteran political analyst John
McLaughlin.
   McLaughlin said on his weekend television show -- and four
other politics watchers who appeared with him all agreed -- that
the 1996 contest would be "a horse race" to the finish.
   Noting that a presidential candidate needs 270 Electoral
College votes to win, McLaughlin said Clinton has 107 votes from
the 10 states plus the District of Columbia that form his base by
having gone Democratic in both 1992 and 1988. Dole, he said, has
168 base votes from 18 Republican-voting states.
   There were 22 states with split votes -- going Republican for
President Bush in 1988 and then switching to Democratic for
Clinton in 1992. Among these states, six are leaning toward
Clinton for another 106 electoral votes, and four are leaning
toward Dole for an additional 36 electoral votes, McLaughlin
said.
   He said that in this scenario, Clinton would be 57 electoral
votes short of victory and Dole would be 66 short.
   The remaining 12 states, with their 121 Electoral College
votes, in McLaughlin's view, are the competitive "swing states"
that will decide the presidential election. Several of these
states -- specifically Michigan, Missouri, Ohio and Pennsylvania
-- are in the so-called industrialized Midwest "Rust Belt" and
are locales where Clinton and Dole are expected to focus much of
their energy.
   ---------------

   ---------------
   FOREIGN POLICY IS GOOD NEWS/BAD NEWS PROPOSITION FOR CLINTON
   By Alexander M. Sullivan

   Conventional wisdom has it that voters in U.S. presidential
elections don't let foreign policy considerations sway their
choices.
   If that's as true as the last five presidential elections
suggest, the conventional wisdom represents one of those good
news/bad news/worse news propositions for President Clinton.
   The good news is that the president has a string of foreign
policy successes to boast about. The bad news is that some of
them could bite the hand that achieved them. The worse news is
that Clinton has very little control over potentially damaging
outbreaks of man's inhumanity to man.
   Clinton, of course, had campaigned for office four years ago
as a candidate who would concentrate on the "bold persistent
experimentation" needed to put the nation's domestic house in
order. But overseas developments frequently follow cycles that
defy agenda setting and sometimes voters change that agenda as
well.
   The latter happened to Clinton in 1994, when Republicans
wrested control of both Houses of Congress from Clinton's
Democratic Party. The Republicans immediately took a strong grip
on domestic spending, leaving Clinton with little room to finance
any domestic experimentation at all, much less the "bold
persistent" type that usually consumes tax dollars.
   Like many of his predecessors, Clinton turned to a more active
foreign policy once his domestic priorities were thwarted by the
Republicans.
   Thoughts about foreign policy naturally arise when the
president leaves the country for high profile visits abroad, like
the April 14-21 Clinton trek to South Korea, Japan and Russia.
   The trip offers three examples of the good and bad of foreign
policy as an election issue. In all three countries, Clinton has
bragging material to thrust into his stump speeches. In all
three, there is an inherent potential for problems.
   On the Korean peninsula, Clinton will be able to point with
pride to the framework agreement with North Korea that pulled the
world back from the brink of war. When North Korea pressed ahead
with nuclear development programs that could have led to
production of nuclear weapons, Washington and Pyongyang, with
South Korea's agreement, reached an eleventh hour pact freezing
the North's nuclear program in place under international
supervision.
   There seems no reason to believe Pyongyang will default on the
agreement, which provides it with light-water nuclear reactors
for production of electric power, and a supply of fuel oil for
power plants to tide it over the reactor construction period.
   In Japan, Clinton has succeeded in getting greater market
access for U.S. goods; and although the trade imbalance remains
troublesome, the sense that Japan is an unfair trade partner has
receded with each of the 20 specific agreements the
administration has concluded with Tokyo. The trade framework
agreement, moreover, provides the mechanism for orderly
discussion of present or future problems, to the point that trade
has been overtaken by security issues as the principal item for
discussion between Washington and Tokyo.
   But as Clinton takes credit for trade improvement, the fate of
U.S. forces stationed in Japan has become a contentious issue. So
far, the government of Japan has contained popular ferment at the
cost of some embarrassment for itself and to a lesser extent for
Washington.
   Unhappiness with the overwhelming presence of U.S. air and
ground troops on Okinawa is bubbling up, with residents demanding
return of land used for U.S. bases as leases expire. According to
news reports, Tokyo has been forced to expropriate and put under
guard a U.S. communications facility for which the rental
agreement has lapsed. And elsewhere in Japan, residents have gone
to court to halt noise pollution from operations at U.S. air
bases.
   The conference on nuclear safety issues in Moscow is a
showcase for one of the administration's strongest points -- its
unwavering campaign to handcuff the menace of nuclear weapons and
nuclear material. Clinton has proposed -- and probably will get
-- international agreement on a zero-based nuclear test treaty,
and there seems no foreseeable downside to the administration's
dedication to securing nuclear material and preventing its
transfer to terrorist hands.
   But once the nuclear summit is over, Clinton meets for
bilateral talks with Russian President Boris Yeltsin, a man beset
with electoral problems of his own. And although Washington
protests that it plays no part in internal Russian politics,
critics contend the administration has been more helpful than
need be in supporting Yeltsin under the stated rubric of boosting
economic and political reform. A Yeltsin loss in the June
election could spur second guessing in the United States.
   Further, the Russian military's brutal handling of the revolt
in Chechnya, and the administration's relatively low-key
response, could flare up in the American presidential campaign if
events again explode in the rebelling province.
   Clinton likes to note that his handling of relations with
Russia has yielded such fruit as Moscow's collaboration in
bringing peace to Bosnia. No one pretends the ferment there has
ended; for the moment, it's enough to say it's under relative
control. But as in Chechnya, there are players in Bosnia over
whom the administration has no influence and a flare-up when the
deadline for withdrawal of U.S. troops approaches could become a
problem for Clinton.
   For the moment, Clinton sees nothing but pluses in his
handling of conflict overseas, including some progress in
Northern Ireland and in the Middle East peace process. Given the
cyclical nature of world events, the president must be forgiven
if he's hoping the current foreign policy cycle of incremental
progress holds constant for at least another seven months.
   ---------------

   ---------------
   ADDITIONAL VICE PRESIDENTIAL RUNNING MATES DISCUSSED

   These political observers commented in the American Political
Network's Hotline on additional potential vice presidential
running mates for Bob Dole, the presumed Republican nominee:
   -- Jim Pitts, deputy publisher of the Weekly Standard, said
former South Carolina Governor Carroll Campbell would help secure
conservative voters because he "has a good record on the pro-life
issue, believes in policies that promote family values, such as
tax cuts, and is good on education issues." Not only would he
help in the South, freeing Dole to focus his campaign in the
Midwest, Pitts said, Campbell has national appeal as a former
head of the National Governors Association.
   -- Republican political strategist Mary Matalin said Illinois
Governor Jim Edgar would fulfill the three main criteria in the
selection of a vice president: he is philosophically in tandem
with the presumed presidential nominee; he has the dignity,
experience and demeanor to be president; and he has experience in
both urban and rural problem solving. Matalin also said governors
are "what the Republican philosophy is about: government close to
the people, solving problems, balancing budgets and having a more
direct impact."
   -- Republican political consultant Mark Liedl said Wisconsin
Governor Tommy Thompson has "a level of credibility and a claim
on leadership that is unmatched." Thompson, he said, having
served three terms, is the second longest serving governor in the
country and "was a real trailblazer on issues like welfare
reform, education reform, cutting taxes and promoting economic
growth." Noting that Thompson is not actually trying to get the
vice presidential nomination, Liedl said that he has been more
concerned about ideas, and that as the current chairman of the
National Governors Association, he has been spending a lot of
time trying to craft a welfare proposal that could break the
impasse in Washington.
   ---------------

   ---------------
   IMPORTANCE OF CATHOLIC VOTE IN U.S. GROWS
   By Charles Salter

   The Catholic vote in the United States is gaining in
importance as Catholics around the country stop viewing
themselves as a political minority and realize their true
political influence, in the view of a panel of political experts
at a recent discussion hosted by Washington's Catholic University
of America.
   Catholics make up approximately 30 percent of the electorate
in the United States and turn out in proportions far greater than
many other voting groups. Traditionally they have supported the
Democratic Party. However in 1994, they represented the single
largest shift in political support, voting largely for the
Republican Party.
   The panelists suggested that this shift arose more from their
perception of an increasingly liberal President Clinton than from
the conservative promises of the Republicans' Contract With
America. Some added that Clinton's recent veto of the partial
birth abortion ban will only hurt his standing with Catholic
voters and will bring the abortion issue again into national
focus in the 1996 election. However, the arguments that arose
between panelists and audience members signaled that the Catholic
vote, much like the rest of the country, is divided on this
issue.
   Kate O'Beirne of the National Review stated that "the media
will focus largely on the Catholic vote in 1996" because "it is a
swing vote that is up for grabs." Chris Matthews of CNBC agreed,
stating that Catholics are largely moderate, along with the
majority of the public, and often mirror the national vote.
   But Stuart Rothenberg, publisher of the "Rothenberg Report"
newsletter, disagreed, stating that the Catholics are not, and
have never been, a cohesive "voting bloc," such as African
Americans or Jews, citing that the last time Catholics voted as
such was for John F. Kennedy in 1960 -- and that was mostly due
to the motivation of "voting for one of their own."
   Directing discussion of the one Catholic running for president
this year, conservative commentator Patrick Buchanan, syndicated
columnist Mark Shields said that when Buchanan criticized big
business, he turned off some Catholic voters who felt he was
being too anti-American. The only chance for a Catholic to appear
on the ticket, Shields added, would be as Bob Dole's
vice-presidential running mate.
   ---------------

   ---------------
   HISPANIC AMERICAN LEADER SAYS VOTING VITAL TO ADVANCE RIGHTS

   Hispanic American citizens must exercise their right to vote
in greater numbers if they want to confirm and enhance their
progress toward equality, says Jose Nino, head of the United
States Hispanic Chamber of Commerce.
   "In countless instances, the Hispanic community has failed to
voice their opinions and concerns through the electoral process,"
he told a news conference April 16. "In the 1994 presidential
election, less than 4 million Hispanics voted, constituting less
than 2 percent of the total voting population."
   He said "These are critical times for the Hispanic community
to unite, as Congress continues to debate issues of affirmative
action, immigration, and proposed budget cuts, all of which could
have a detrimental effect on the Hispanic community, particularly
those in business."
   The National Association of Hispanic Publications, which
sponsored the news conference, said that only 6 million of the 10
million adult Hispanic Americans are registered to vote, and its
goal is to register a million more for the 1996 elections.
   ---------------

   ---------------
   THREE MORE MEMBERS OF CONGRESS DEPARTING

   Republican James Quillen, a 17-term congressman from Tennessee
and a member of the Rules Committee, and Harold Ford, an 11-term
Democrat from the same state and a member of the Ways and Means
Committee, both this past week announced their retirements from
the House of Representatives.
   Also, three-term Republican Bill Zeliff said he was giving up
his House seat to run for the open contest for governor in his
home state of New Hampshire.
   This brings to 47 the number of legislators not seeking
re-election to the 435-member House in November, 28 Democrats and
19 Republicans.
   ---------------

   ---------------
   PUNDIT PEARLS

   -- The Nation columnist Eric Alterman: "While Clinton has no
effective foreign policy opposition within his party -- or
domestic policy opposition, for that matter -- the Republicans
remain divided along extremely hard lines, most notably on trade,
immigration and interventionism. Dole's foreign policy problem is
therefore identical to his domestic policy problem. His own views
are barely distinguishable from the president's. But in order to
keep peace inside his party, he must pretend to share the
passions of the extra-chromosome set without scaring off too many
normal people in the process."
   -- Former Delaware governor and presidential candidate Pete
duPont: "Mr. Dole apparently has decided the flat tax is not a
bad idea after all. As the New York Times put it, 'Mr. Dole is
now talking about a flat tax proposal of his own, something his
aides hint he would have announced sooner if Mr. Forbes had not
grabbed the issue first.' While to some, such behavior may prove
the fecklessness of American politicians, in truth it is an
essential strength of our system. Good ideas are not banished
from the political process just because they had the bad luck to
be promoted by a losing candidate. On the contrary, like flowers
in the desert, they bloom again and again."
   ---------------

   ---------------
   CAMPAIGN '96: FOREIGN POLICY

   JIM MALONE
   WASHINGTON

   The U.S. Congress is back at work this week and lawmakers are
expected to focus on issues like the budget deficit, welfare
reform, and immigration, issues which could be pivotal in the
1996 presidential campaign. But what about foreign policy issues,
will foreign policy play a role in campaign '96?
   Foreign policy issues usually do not decide presidential
elections. There are exceptions, of course. The 1968 race was
dominated by the war in Vietnam. In 1980, President Jimmy Carter
struggled to demonstrate that he could handle foreign policy as
American hostages were held in Iran.
   In 1991, George Bush rode victory in the Gulf War to a
personal approval rating approaching 90-percent in public opinion
polls. But it was the economy which was on the minds of voters a
year later when Mr. Bush lost his bid for a second term.
   What about 1996? Political analyst Stuart Rothenberg makes a
living trying to figure out which issues matter most to voters.
He says as things stand right now, foreign policy will not be one
of them:
   "Well, so far I think you would have to say that now and for
the last few years, foreign policy has been almost irrelevant to
the American electorate. Bill Clinton ran last time in 1992
saying I want to get back to domestic issues, (saying that)
George Bush spends too much time travelling around the world. And
I think in spite of Bosnia and Somalia and Korea and Haiti and
Cuba and various international incidents over the past few years,
foreign policy is off the radar screen."
   Of course, all this could change with an international crisis
or a sudden surge of casualties among U.S. peacekeepers in
Bosnia-Herzegovina. Stuart Rothenberg and other analysts also
warn a victory by the communist party candidate in Russia's
upcoming presidential election could have a big impact on the
U.S. presidential campaign:
   "The one thing that could put it back on the radar screen is
Russia and some sort of major threat to U.S. national security.
Americans will respond when America is threatened. But they are
less concerned about the rest of the world. That may be
unfortunate, but that is nevertheless the fact."
   Other analysts predict that increasing tensions between North
and South Korea, and China flexing its military muscle could
become issues in the campaign. Stephen Wayne is a professor of
government at Georgetown University here in Washington. He
believes even if foreign policy does not become a major issue in
the campaign, the Clinton Administration is positioned to make
the most of its foreign policy successes, especially its peace
efforts in Bosnia, Haiti, Northern Ireland, and the Middle East:
   "In the absence of those (a major crisis), I do not think
foreign policy will be an issue. However, on the other hand, I do
not think that the fact that Clinton has been fairly active in
foreign policy in the last two years will be a detriment
(negative) either. Bush could not take credit for his policy
achievements (he did not get political credit for them). Clinton
will be able to take credit for his."
   The presumed Republican presidential nominee, Senator Bob
Dole, is eager to highlight his differences with the
administration on a host of foreign policy issues. Senator Dole
is expected to focus on his opposition to placing U.S.
peacekeepers under U.N. command. He is also expected to argue
against cuts in the defense budget which Senator Dole believes
would undermine the United States' status as the sole remaining
superpower.
   ---------------

   ---------------
   BUSH DECLARES SUPPORT FOR DOLE

   DAVID SWAN
   SENATE

   Former President Bush has declared his strong support for
Republican Bob Dole in this year's presidential race, because of
what he calls the senator's leadership and maturity. The two men
met Tuesday at the capitol.
   Senator Dole and then-vice President Bush were bitter enemies
in the 1988 Republican campaign. Now, Mr. Bush vows to do all he
can to help his old rival beat President Clinton.
   Mr. Bush says this is not a personal or partisan stand.
Echoing other Republicans, he says the country needs a strong,
experienced leader to keep its position in world affairs:
   "We have got to lead. We can not pull back, and Bob Dole stood
up to isolationistic pressures all through this campaign and that
earned the respect of many people around the world. And that is
just the tip of the iceberg, as far as what he can do."
   Mr. Bush is just back from a trip to China with his one-time
national security advisor Brent Scowcroft. He briefed Mr. Dole on
the visit, but otherwise says he has no advice about how to run
the campaign. The former president says his sons, one of whom is
now governor of Texas, are more important to this election than
he is.
   ---------------

   ---------------
   ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES AND CAMPAIGN '96

   DEBORAH BLOCK
   WASHINGTON

   In the 1970's and early 80's, there was much concern in the
United States about the deterioration of the environment. In
1970, the first annual "Earth Day" was observed to bring
awareness to environmental problems around the world. During the
last decade, however, environmental issues have received less
attention, at least in the American political arena. But the
issue appears to be re-emerging in this year's political
campaign.
   Paul Bogart, national campaign director for the environmental
group, Greenpeace, thinks the environment will be a key issue in
the '96 campaign:
   "I think that Americans are beginning to be more and more
strident in their demand for environmental protection, not so
much as it was in the late 70's and early 80's around wildlife
protection and things of that nature, but as it relates to their
health."
   In his state of the union address in January, President
Clinton spoke at length about environmental issues. He was
applauded by some members of Congress, mostly Democrats, when he
denounced Republican opponents who think the government has gone
too far in trying to address environmental concerns. The
president called on congress to re-examine U.S. policies and
reverse those that do not protect the environment.
   Polls show most Americans support federal laws that safeguard
the environment. Karlyn Bowman of the private research group, the
American Enterprise Institute, has examined polls on the public's
attitude toward the environment over the past 25 years. She says
they indicate the public views the Democrats as more
pro-environment than the Republicans:
   "When the issue first emerged in the early 60's and 1970's,
neither party had a political advantage on handling the
environment. But during the 1970's, the Democrats gained a pretty
substantial advantage, and they've held on to that advantage ever
since. If you look at actual voting data at the national level,
usually about three percent of Americans say that the environment
is the most important issue today in casting their vote. That
vote has been a Democratic vote overall. So I think Clinton is
speaking to voters that he will need to turn out to ensure an
election victory."
   Democratic Congressman Louis Stokes is a strong supporter of
federal environmental programs. He thinks the stance that
candidates take regarding the environment could determine whether
or not they get elected in November. The congressman pointed
especially to Republicans who try to delay or block appropriation
bills that would fund environmental protection programs:
   "I think that the Republicans have really misjudged the
American people with this assault that they have waged against
the environment. It should be basic, I would think, to realize
that it is a mistake to let lobbyists for the large polluters in
this country to have the audacity to come on capital hill, and
not only persuade these Republican congressmen to make this
assault on the environmental laws affecting our water and air and
food, but to actually let them write riders which they then take
and attach to appropriation bills. It is really the height of
arrogance. I think they've totally misjudged the American people
by allowing these lobbyists for the polluters to have this type
of influence over them."
   But Republican Congressman Richard Pombo sees the issue
another way. He says the problem is that a number of
environmental regulations have gone too far:
   "The Clean Water Act or Endangered Species Act, laws that
started out with very broad support, nearly unanimous support,
when they originally passed. But unfortunately, what begins to
happen, is you pass a law that protects water from being
polluted, or species from becoming extinct, and as those laws
become implemented out in the real world, you have a bureaucracy
that tends to feed upon itself and grows, and begins to regulate
things that people never imagined would ever be regulated when
the law originally went through. On the Endangered Species Act, a
law that was passed in an effort to protect bald eagles, grizzly
bears and gray wolves, soon became a method of land use planning,
and control out of Washington, DC, that had little to do with
protecting the endangered species, but more a matter of stopping
growth, grazing, or farming on certain lands, in an effort to
fill an agenda that some environmental extremists have."
   During the past year, some Congressional Republicans have
introduced legislation that could weaken environmental
protections. They have called for easing controls on businesses
that could lead to more water and air pollution. They have also
called for a sharp reduction in the budget for the U.S.
environmental protection agency, which oversees the
implementation of environmental programs.
   A recent poll by a group of business organizations, known as
the Superfund Reform Coalition, warns Republican leaders that
attempts to cut environmental spending could backfire on election
day. Superfund is a government program that began in the 1980's
to eliminate hazardous waste sites. The program has not been
considered successful because many of those sites have not been
cleaned up, in part because of a lack of funding.
   According to the superfund poll, most Americans think the
Democrats do a better job of protecting the environment than the
Republicans. The poll also indicates that more than half of the
Republican voters do not believe their party adequately protects
the environment, while 70 percent of Democratic voters think
their party does.
   Susan Eckerly focuses on the environment for the citizens for
a sound economy, a group that promotes free market principles. It
is also part of the superfund reform coalition. She is not
surprised by the results of the poll:
   "The Republicans in the Congress have serious perception
problems on the environment. And if they are intent on certain
reforms, they aren't getting their message out that they still
want to protect the environment, which I believe they do."
   Recently, a group of Republican moderates in Congress
complained to House speaker Newt Gingrich, that the party was
taking a political beating on environmental policy. Mr. Gingrich
apparently does not disagree, and is expected to appoint a House
task force on the environment, to be headed by congressman
Sherwood Boehlert (bo-lert), the Republican Party's leading
environmentalist. His district includes the Adirondack State Park
in New York, the largest public park in the United States.
Congressman Boehlert opposes any effort to roll back
environmental laws, and says an increasing number of Republican
lawmakers are focusing more on addressing environmental concerns:
   "I would look at the votes in the House of Representatives
this past year, when we started out with very few Republican
votes on environmental issues. And by the time year-end
approached we had almost a hundred members voting for key
environmental legislation. So I think members are focusing on the
issue, and the more they focus on it, the more they appreciate
that the environment knows no partisan limitations."
   Republican leaders say there is nothing wrong with their
environmental agenda. The problem, they say, is that it has not
been clearly explained to the public. Congressman Pombo agrees:
   "I believe we have to do a much better job of educating people
as to what changes we want to make to some of these regulations.
What common sense changes people have talked about since these
laws were passed and were unable to make through Congress or the
administration. And I think that if we do a much better job of
communicating to people what these changes are, that won't be the
case. However, if we sit back and allow the president and his
administration to mischaracterize what we're doing, then we may
have a problem with it."
   Besides the Congress, a growing number of business and
environmental groups are joining the debate over environmental
issues.
   Environmental organizations are urging their members to
complain to Congress about what they perceive to be the lack of
Republican support for environmental programs. And it appears
their strategy may getting some results. For example, a few
months ago, a bi-partisan congressional delegation from New
Jersey wrote to Republican leaders asking them to restore
financing that had been cut from the superfund program. The
delegation was particulary concerned that during the U.S.
government shutdown in December and January, the clean-up of
hundreds of toxic waste sites came to a temporary standstill
because there was no money.
   A report by the world business council for sustainable
development shows that a growing number of companies are becoming
more concerned about the environment. An increasing number of
banks have hired environmental managers to make sure that money
is not lent to companies that cause pollution for which they
could be fined heavily by the government. And some banks are even
giving their business customers advice on environmental
liability.
   Insurance companies are also becoming more aware of pollution
problems and have started participating in government-sponsored
meetings on the environment. Some of these firms are creating new
businesses by becoming environmental consultants.
   One major environmental conflict this past year concerned
mining bills that allow companies to tap mineral resources on
valuable government-owned lands for very small fees.
Environmentalist groups opposed the legislation because they felt
it would not provide adequate environmental protection. Observers
say mining companies agreed they should pay more money because
the 123-year-old law was no longer realistic and they feared
possible reprisals against them. But President Clinton vetoed
bills that would have changed the law because he thought the
government would not be compensated enough. He also rejected
other bills that would have weakened the authority of the
Environmental Protection Agency and the Interior Department,
which also handles environmental problems.
   On another matter, the president vetoed legislation to allow
oil drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska
because he feared it might hurt the environment. But Republican
Congressman Pombo says such projects may not be destructive. He
points out that a U.S. environmentalist group, the National
Audubon Society, has safely drilled natural gas and oil in a
wildlife refuge in Louisiana for 50 years.
   Recent polls show Americans overwhelmingly support government
efforts to assure a clean environment and the protection of
natural resources. But they appear to view most environmental
issues in general terms, and are not necessarily concerned about
laws that address particular problems.
   Congressman Sherwood Boehlert thinks more Americans are
placing greater importance on the environment today than they did
a few years ago:
   "The reason there's been a come-back is because most people
felt Washington had its act together and was dealing responsibly
with environmental legislation. But then, in early 1995, when it
appeared there was an all-out assault on environmental
legislation, then the environmental organizations got concerned,
and they began to energize grass roots America, and members of
congress began to hear from their constituents."
   Many Americans are especially concerned that cuts to some
environmental programs could harm government efforts to guarantee
an adequate supply of safe drinking water. To show their concern
over this and other environmental issues, more than one-million
activists signed, what they called, an "environmental bill of
rights." And delivered it to the Congress last November.
   But are most Americans willing to pay the large costs of
government programs aimed at protecting the environment?
Congressman Boehlert thinks they are:
   "Americans are recognizing that an investment in sound
environmental legislation is a very wise investment. They pay
dearly when we can't drink our water, when we can't breath our
air. Environmental issues responsibly handled are good for the
American families, business community, and they're recognizing
that."
   Betsy Loyless, political director for the private
environmental group, the League of Conservation Voters, agrees:
   "We have polling data that indicates the American public
understands that paying for public health protection saves and
prevents future problems, both for their children and in general.
There is a majority of the public that is willing to do this but
they want it to go for clean-up."
   Susan Eckerly, of the Citizens for a Sound Economy, thinks
Americans want environmental protection to continue, but at what
cost?:
   "How much they know how much it costs is the big question. I
think that those of us who have been arguing for some reform in
the way some regulations are written have found that the economic
argument doesn't always sell or it doesn't seem to be a
galvanizing force behind pushing reform. So I'm not sure how much
the public senses they're paying a lot for it."
   But Paul Bogart of Greenpeace questions whether the American
public is willing to meet the growing costs of today's
environmental protection programs:
   "I don't think Americans are willing to pay for more
environmental protection in the sense of would they want
increased taxes. I don't think any American wants increased
taxes. But I don't think that's the trade-off we're looking for.
We realize that these huge corporations, not only are they
getting substantial tax benefits, but they're also polluting our
lives and ruining our children's lives at our expense. They
should be paying the cost."
   While it appears more people are paying attention to
environmental issues in the United States, will it be a notable
part of the this year's election campaign? Karlyn Bowman of the
private research group, the American Enterprise Institute, says
'no':
   "I think it will probably, in the final analysis, in the
national campaign, influence will be a very small number of
voters. Public thinking on the environment has evolved very
significantly in the last 25 years. The issue appears to be less
urgent for many Americans than it was in the past. Not to say
we're completely satisfied with the progress that's been made, we
think there's a long way to go, but today many other issues
eclipse the environment."
   Greenpeace official Paul Bogart says, in the end, Americans
who are most concerned about the environment will evaluate the
candidates on that basis. But he's not sure how many voters fall
into that category:
   "I think what is most important, and will be most important as
people go to the polls, is that they look at the actual record
(of the candidates). And I think for Democrats to feel a general
public feeling that Democrats are sensitive toward environmental
protection is going to carry them through an election year that
promises to be very contentious, I think is a false assumption."
   Congressman Richard Pombo thinks environmental issues may
become increasingly prominent in the '96 campaign. He says that
could both help and hinder President Clinton's re-election
efforts:
   "In many regions of the country it will be a huge negative for
Clinton to take the (pro-environment) stance that he and his
administration has taken. In other regions of the country, that
are not directly affected by these environmental laws, it may be
a positive for him. I think Clinton has decided that running for
re-election he has to get the support of his base, the extreme
left-wing groups that include environmental groups. He needs to
regain their support. He basically spent the last three years of
his presidency ignoring the environment. And all of a sudden when
it comes time for re-election, he's trying to make it an issue to
re-establish his base with the environmental groups who all
worked very hard to get him elected. So he has talked about it a
lot in the last couple of months."
   Susan Eckerly, of the Citizens for a Sound Economy, says the
Democrats will use the environmental issue to try to get swing
voters, independents and others who are not committed to a
particular party:
   "The polls show there's a significant number of independents
and Republicans who question the way the Republican party's
managing this issue. So it's in the president's interest to try
and use this issue to go after those swing voters. And I
definitely think he sees this as a wedge issue this year and he's
going to continually use the issue to his advantage."
   It appears environmental issues may have already helped one
candidate win a vacant Senate seat in Oregon this year. Exit
polls suggest that Democrat Ron Wyden (why-den) defeated his
Republican opponent because the voters believed the Republican
party may be undermining environmental laws.
   But despite the emphasis already placed on environmental
issues in the '96 campaign, polls show the issue ranks well below
most other voter concerns, such as the economy, jobs and
education.
   ---------------

   ---------------
   SUPREME COURT HEARS CAMPAIGN FINANCE CASE

   JANE BERGER
   WASHINGTON

   The Supreme Court has heard oral arguments in a case that
challenges federal limits on campaign spending by political
parties. The Colorado Republican Party contends that limits on
spending by political parties violates constitutional free speech
guarantees.
   The Supreme Court is considering the issue of federal limits
on campaign spending for the first time in 20 years. In 1976, the
Supreme Court upheld limits on contributions to candidates for
federal office, including a one thousand dollar limit on
individual contributions and a five thousand dollar limit for
political organizations.
   At the same time, the court said candidates themselves could
spend as much of their own money as they wished, and ruled that
independent groups could also spend unrestricted amounts on
behalf of a particular candidate. The justices reasoned that
limits on that kind of spending would violate free speech
guarantees.
   The court in 1976 did not address the issue of campaign
spending by political parties, the central issue in the current
case.
   The case began in 1986, when then Democratic Congressman
Timothy Wirth decided to run for a vacancy in the U.S. Senate.
The Colorado Republican Party spent 15,000 dollars to broadcast
radio advertisements criticizing some of Mr. Wirth's views. The
state Democratic Party filed a complaint with the Federal
Election Commission, contending the party had exceeded its
spending limits.
   under another federal provision, campaign spending by state
parties is limited under a formula based on the voting age
population of each state. State parties may either spend this
money themselves or pass it on to the national political party.
   In 1986, the Colorado Republicans had given their federal
allotment to the national party. The Republican Party contends
the 15,000 dollars spent on advertising against the Democratic
Congressman was not subject to federal spending limits because
the ad did not specifically call for a vote against Mr. Wirth.
   A federal district court sided with the Colorado Republican
party, but a federal appeals overturned the ruling.
   In arguments before the Supreme Court, attorney Jan Baran said
it is unconstitutional to limit the role of political parties in
public debate. He spoke to reporters after the court session:
   "Any time you talk about issues, you necessarily talk about
candidates and office holders. And it's difficult to talk about
the balanced budget amendment without mentioning President
Clinton or mentioning (house) speaker (newt) Gingrich. And when a
party does that, what this law does, it renders their speech
subject to a limit. And that's a violation of the first
amendment."
   Arguing in favor of the campaign spending limits, U.S.
solicitor general Drew Days said if the limits are overturned,
political parties will be able to evade current restrictions on
campaign spending by individuals and independent political
organizations.
   Former Senator Wirth, who won the 1986 campaign, said a ruling
in favor of the Colorado Republican Party would encourage more
negative campaigns:
   "The danger in the argument made by the proponents of lifting
limitations is that we're going to further enhance the capacity
of a few interest groups to spend even more money running even
more negative campaigns. Now is it, as a matter of public policy,
do we want to have more money running more negative campaigns on
more narrow issues? And I think the answer to that should be no."
   For more than a decade, members of both major political
parties have been calling for reform of campaign finance laws to
limit the influence of special interest groups. So far, the two
parties have been unable to reach agreement on what kind of
spending limits to impose. The Supreme Court decision in the
Colorado case, expected by the end of June, could affect the
spending ability of political parties in general elections this
coming November. That might prompt the major political parties to
finally enact new legislation.
   ---------------

   ---------------
   TAX FREEDOM DAY: MAY 7TH

   ANDREW BAIRD
   WASHINGTON

   A new report issued in Washington says Americans are working
longer than ever to pay their local, state, and federal taxes.
   April 15th is a day that many Americans look on with a mixture
of resignation, frustration, and anxiety. It's their deadline for
paying state and federal income taxes. In a news conference
Monday, a non-partisan research group called the Tax Foundation
released a new report which shows that Americans on average now
must work until May 7th to earn enough money to pay their taxes
at all levels.
   That's the latest date ever. Tax foundation economist Pat
Fleenor says it's also the fourth year in a row that the date of
what they call "tax freedom" day has slipped. A decade ago
Americans were able to satisfy their tax burden a week earlier:
   "This means that the average American will have to devote all
the income earned during the first 127 days of the year to paying
taxes. Income earned earned during the first 84 of these days
will be used to pay federal taxes. Income earned during the
balance of the days will be used to pay state and local taxes."
   In a comparison of states, residents of Connecticut have taken
over from those in New York what could be viewed as the dubious
honor of paying the most in combined annual taxes per capita:
13,580 dollars. Alabama residents pay the least amount: 6.457
dollars. Differences in combined tax burdens are the result of
several factors, including different state tax burdens and income
disparities among residents of various.
   These disparities are magnified by the nation's progressive
tax system which taxes Americans at increasing rates the higher
they are on the income scale.
   Tax Foundation economist Patrick Fleenor says that no matter
where Americans reside, the trend is that for the next several
years, their "tax freedom" day will occur later and later in the
calendar year, a prospect that many will find distinctly
unwelcome.
   ---------------

   ---------------
   FREE OFFER FROM PUBLISHER

          "CLIP" NEWS SERVICE

          INEWS DAILY IS NOW AVAILABLE THROUGH E-MAIL

          FREE TRIAL

          LOW COST ROYALTY FREE REPRODUCTION RIGHTS AVAILABLE

   International News E-Wire Service (INEWS) is an English
language daily, covering news of the world.  INEWS provides
up-to-date and accurate world news.  It also includes many
features and interviews covering such topics as current events,
politics, economics, science, medicine, history, technology,
agriculture, religion, and music.

   Low cost republication rights are available allowing articles
to be used on BBSs, in newsletters, advertising, LANs, weeklies,
community newspapers, school newspapers, brochures, media kits,
presentations, church bulletins, and more.

   Every day, INEWS gathers reports filed by correspondents
stationed at 26 news bureaus throughout the world.  INEWS relates
first-hand coverage of stories from news bureaus in Abidjan,
Bangkok, Beijing, Berlin, Bonn, Cairo, Chicago, Geneva, Hong
Kong, Islamabad, Jerusalem, Johannesburg, London, Los Angeles,
Miami, Moscow, Nairobi, New Delhi, New York, Paris, Prague, Rio
de Janeiro, San Jose, Tokyo, Vienna, and Washington, D.C.

   Daily INEWS service is available for less than $4.00 a month.

   Delivered through E-mail in one of two versions, plain text or
a DOS/VGA version.  The DOS/VGA version is sent either through
E-mail, encoded, or through file transfer on America Online,
Compuserve, or Prodigy.

   A free two week trial can be received by sending E-mail
containing E-mail address, name and address to:

   INTERNET: INEWS@AOL.COM 
   AOL: INEWS
   COMPUSERVE: 76725,3622
   WORLD WIDE WEB: http://members.aol.com/inewscirc/inews.html
   --------------
   ***END OF FILE*** 