==================================================================
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 #18


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


CONTENTS:
   CAMPAIGN '96 STATUS REPORT
   DOLE SAYS SAUDI BOMBING MARKS NEED FOR INCREASED DEFENSE SPENDING
   FORMER WHITE HOUSE STAFFER REFUSES TO TESTIFY TO SENATE COMMITTEE
   CAMPAIGN '96: CLINTON POLLS
   CATHOLIC CHURCH POSTCARD CAMPAIGN TO OVERTURN ABORTION BILL VETO
   HOMELESS VOTER DRIVE
   ILLINOIS GOVERNOR SAYS BUCHANAN SHOULD NOT SPEAK AT GOP CONVENTION
   GROUP TRIES TO INTRODUCE HUNGER AS A CAMPAIGN ISSUE
   SUPREME COURT: CAMPAIGN SPENDING
   LAWSUIT DELAY GOOD NEWS FOR CLINTON IN WEEK OF FRUSTRATIONS
   DOLE SAYS CLINTON TURNS "BLIND EYE" TOWARD RUSSIA
   BOUTROS-GHALI BECOMES ISSUE IN PRESIDENTIAL RACE
   WHITE EVANGELICAL CHRISTIANS NOW REPUBLICAN BASE PLURALITY
   DEMOCRATS UNVEIL "FAMILIES FIRST" LEGISLATIVE AGENDA
   CAMPAIGN TRAIL TIDBITS
   POLLING PRISMS
   JOURNALISTIC JUXTAPOSITIONS
   EDITORIAL EXCERPTS
   CONGRESS/WHITE HOUSE COMPROMISE OVER SUBPOENAED DOCUMENTS
   CAMPAIGN '96: PRESIDENTIAL DEBATES
   U.S. OPINION ROUNDUP: CAMPAIGN REFORM
   INTEREST GROUPS ARE INTEGRAL PART OF U.S. ELECTIONS, EXPERT SAYS
   WHITE HOUSE RESPONDS REPORTS HILLARY CLINTON MEETINGS WITH PSYCHIC
   SUPREME COURT: CLINTON SEXUAL HARASSMENT CASE
   U.S. OPINION ROUNDUP: COURT ON CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICTS
   PRESIDENTIAL RACE MOVES TO "CHARACTER WARS" PHASE
   SUPREME COURT RULING COULD MEAN FEWER BLACKS IN CONGRESS
   REPUBLICAN PRIMARY VOTE, WHILE LOW, STILL SETS A RECORD
   CAMPAIGN '96: THE WELFARE DEBATE
   WHITEWATER COMMITTEE REPORT ACCUSES FIRST LADY OF OBSTRUCTION
   U.S. CAMPAIGN FINANCING: PROBLEMS WITH THE LAW
   U.S. CAMPAIGN FINANCING: PROPOSED REFORMS
   TALK RADIO AN IMPORTANT FORUM FOR POLITICAL CANDIDATES
   VOLUNTEERS ARE CRITICAL TO ELECTION CAMPAIGNS
   BOB DOLE'S ROOTS
   WORLD PRESS: US POLITICS: WHITE HOUSE TRAVAILS
   ==============================================
   ---------------
   CAMPAIGN '96 STATUS REPORT

   JIM MALONE
   WASHINGTON

   Public opinion polls continue to indicate that president Bill
Clinton has a healthy lead over Republican Bob Dole in the U.S.
presidential campaign. This is despite a growing controversy
about the administration's handling of personal FBI files,
including those of a number of prominent Republicans.
   The presidential campaign this week was largely eclipsed by
news of the devastating bomb blast in Saudi Arabia. As commander
in chief, President Clinton promised to seek swift justice for
those behind the attack:
   "We will not rest in our efforts to find who is responsible
for this outrage, to pursue them and to punish them. Anyone who
attacks one American attacks every American. And we protect and
defend our own."
   Republican Bob Dole was campaigning in the middle west when
news of the blast reached him:
   "We have to do our best to make certain that whoever
perpetrated this tragedy is brought to justice and an attack on
any American is an attack on America. So I would support whatever
the administration would have in mind."
   At home, the president continues to emphasize issues with
appeal to middle class voters like tax credits to help parents
afford child care or to send a student to college.
   Republican Dole, meanwhile, lashed out at the administration's
foreign policy this week, accusing the president of having a
misguided, overly romantic view of U.S. relations with Russia. He
also warns that U.S. troops may be stuck in Bosnia for sometime
to come.
   But Mr. Dole has problems of his own, especially with members
of his own party about the issue of abortion. He is trying to
avoid a showdown over the issue at the Republican convention in
San Diego in August, hoping to prove his allegiance to abortion
opponents while at the same time acknowledging the views of
abortion rights supporters in the party as well.
   Stuart Rothenberg is publisher of the Rothenberg Political
Report in Washington. He says the internal Republican debate
about abortion is helping to maintain the president's 15 to
20-point lead in most public opinion polls:
   "And the Republicans still seem divided over issues like
abortion, the two wings of the party, the more establishment
conservatives and the more activist conservatives. So, well I
think the (poll) numbers will close, I tell you, I have been
impressed by the president's ability to stay in the middle and to
keep his numbers (poll ratings) relatively up."
   At the same time, the president's poll numbers do not appear
to be suffering as yet from the lingering controversies about
Whitewater and the alleged mishandling of FBI files by the White
House. Howard University political science professor Ron Walters
says voters for the moment appear ready to back the president
despite the ongoing mini-scandals:
   "I think that right now the polls are showing that over 70
percent of the American people think that something is there
(suspicious) with Whitewater, that probably the president did
something wrong. But only 22-percent say that it is going to
affect the way they are going to vote. So there is a huge
disconnect, at least there appears to be, between what the press
is covering and what the people say is important."
   Also this week, the U.S. Supreme Court handed down a ruling
which might lead to an increase in the amount of money spent on
U.S. congressional campaigns this year. The high court ruled that
U.S. political parties can now spend as much money as they want
on congressional races as long as they act independently of the
individual candidates.
   ---------------

   ---------------
   DOLE SAYS SAUDI BOMBING MARKS NEED FOR INCREASED DEFENSE SPENDING

   VICTOR BEATTIE
   WASHINGTON

   In a veiled criticism of President Clinton's national security
policies, presumptive Republican presidential candidate Bob Dole
Saturday says last week's terrorist bombing in Saudi Arabia
underscores the need for increased defense spending. Mr. Dole,
who remains on the campaign trail, also called for a missile
defense system:
   Mr. Dole says the terrorist bombing in Saudi Arabia is a
reminder that the world remains a dangerous place. He says while
the United States cannot be the world's policeman he says America
cannot, in his words, just turn off the porch light, lock the
doors, cross our fingers and hope everyone behaves.
   Mr. Dole suggested that Clinton defense policies have resulted
in reduced military spending, making America more vulnerable:
   "In defending ourselves from new dangers and supplying and
modernizing our military forces and in sharpening our
technological edge America's goal must not just be sufficient
strength to turn back a threat; rather, we must be so strong that
tyrants and terrorists are not tempted to threaten us at all."
   Later, speaking to veterans in Dallas (texas), Mr. Dole sought
to highlight the differences he has with Mr. Clinton over defense
policy:
   "If I want to make a mistake as president of the United States
on spending too much or too little for defense, I would rather
err on the side of spending too much because if you spend too
little, we're going to be in trouble."
   Mr. Dole repeated his call for creation of a ballistic
missile-defense system. The Clinton-Gore re-election campaign
says that, while the president fully supports a strong and
sensible missile-defense program, it considers dole's missile
defense plan too expensive.
   ---------------

   ---------------
   FORMER WHITE HOUSE STAFFER REFUSES TO TESTIFY TO SENATE COMMITTEE

   DAVID SWAN
   SENATE

   A former White House staffer has refused to tell Congress
about his role in collecting confidential files on hundreds of
people who worked in past administrations. This latest
development came as a Senate committee held another hearing on
the case, which has become a political headache for president
Clinton.
   The judiciary committee summoned Anthony Marceca, one of the
key figures in the improper handling of sensitive law-enforcement
background files. He had already spent several hours before
another panel, but this time he declined to appear, raising his
constitutional right against possible self-incrimination. The
committee chairman, Republican senator Orrin Hatch, read a letter
from Mr. Marceca's lawyers:
   "The counsel for Mr. Marceca informs me, has informed all of
us, that Mr. Marceca will refuse to answer any and all questions
on all topics related to today's hearing."
   The letter did not spell out the reasons for the surprise
decision. The committee did hear from Mr. Marceca's former
supervisor, Craig Livingstone, who once again called the matter a
bureaucratic mistake. Mr. Livingstone says the dossiers were
brought in to help his office update the list of people allowed
on the White House grounds. He insists he was not looking for
damaging secrets about Mr. Clinton's enemies:
   "I also want to reiterate that neither i, nor to my knowledge
anyone else in the White House, participated in any kind of smear
campaign or an effort to compile an enemies list as some have
alleged or feared. It's not true."
   The question of who hired Mr. Livingstone has become a key
issue. After spending his life in partisan politics, he was given
a job in personnel security, even though he had no experience in
the field. Republicans sought to link his hiring to first lady
Hillary Rodham Clinton. Mr. Livingstone says he is still not sure
who wanted him in the White House:
   "Certainly not the president, Mrs. Clinton or the
vice-president."
   No one suggests the president himself took part in collecting
the files, but the matter has given critics new ammunition to
attack his administration's ethics. While even some Democrats say
the affair was a serious blunder, Republicans charge the White
House deliberately and flagrantly abused its power. Senator Alan
Simpson says Americans' fundamental right to privacy is at stake:
   "Its about medical consultations, financial transactions, use
of controlled substances (drugs), legal actions, gossip,
innuendo. Its all in there. That's the offensive part of this
whole thing and its the duty of this Congress to find out why
that happened and this egregious use of power will not happen
again."
   Republicans say they still hope to obtain testimony from Mr.
Marceca, perhaps by giving him immunity from prosecution. So far,
the hearings have done little to undermine the White House
version of events but the case shows no sign of disappearing
anytime soon.
   ---------------

   ---------------
   CAMPAIGN '96: CLINTON POLLS

   ANDREW J. BAROCH
   WASHINGTON

   Allegations of ethical wrongdoing against officials in the
Clinton Administration have not hurt the president politically,
according to several public opinion surveys. A majority of
Americans gives the president high marks.
   Fifty-three percent of Americans approve of Mr. Clinton's job
performance, according to the findings of a "New York Times"
newspaper survey released this week. And the latest "USA
Today/CNN" poll puts his job approval at 58 percent. Mr. Clinton
holds about a 20-point lead over the presumed Republican
presidential candidate Bob Dole in both polls.
   The "New York Times" survey asked respondents to rate the
importance of the so-called Whitewater affair. "Whitewater" is
the name given to allegations that officials in the Clinton White
House tried to cover up unethical financial practices dating back
to when Mr. Clinton was governor of Arkansas in the 1980's.
Forty-three percent of Americans in the "Times" poll said
Whitewater is of very little importance; 31 percent said it was
of some importance; and 17 percent said it was of great
importance.
   The "Times" poll also found that few Americans have paid
attention to the recent disclosure that, in 1993, the White House
improperly obtained hundreds of confidential files from the U.S.
Federal Bureau of Investigation on Republicans from past
administrations.
   Independent pollster Andrew Kohut explains why, in his view,
many Americans seem indifferent to the appearance or allegations
of scandal emanating from the White House:
   "On most of these issues, Whitewater, for example, very few
people pay attention to these stories on an ongoing basis. The
president's ratings have never been higher at a time when the
profile of Whitewater was very high. Mostly, people think there's
probably something the matter, probably some guilt on the part of
the Clintons. But [most people say,] 'they're not guilty of a big
crime. There's probably some small cover up and some small crime,
and it's not worth all of the energy that's put into pursuing the
story and pursuing these investigations.' People put more
importance on judging other qualities of the president than they
do in judging him on the basis of what they perceive to be
relatively minor infractions. Let's call them misdemeanors,
rather than felonies."
   And the public has grown accustomed to questions about his
character, including the allegations of drug use, draft evasion,
and philandering that came up during the 1992 U.S. presidential
campaign.
   E.J. Dionne is a national political columnist for "The
Washington Post" newspaper:
   "President Clinton has gone through such a media wringer,
especially way back in '92, that people have made up their minds
about him. They either accept him more or less the way he is,
flaws and virtues and all. Or they don't, and I think he's still
got politics on his side. That is to say, I think a lot of people
in the country decided that his fight with Republicans in the
congress on some issues like Medicare, were more important to
them than some of these personal matters. I think those two
things are part of why he's held up in the polls."
   Mr. Clinton's ability to address issues of importance to
average Americans, such as crime and education, and the
continuing health of the economy help explain his popularity,
according to "Newsweek" magazine columnist Joe Klein. Mr. Klein
adds that most Americans also believe the allegations are
politically motivated:
   "It just seems to be a very, very partisan sort of thing. In
the past, when you had scandals that cut, really hurt, you had
Republicans turning against Dick Nixon [in Watergate scandal]. In
Iran-Contra [1980's scandal over effort to free U.S. hostages in
Mideast and aid anti-communist rebels in Nicaragua] you had a few
Republicans turning against Ronald Reagan. In this case, there
are no Democrats who are saying Bill Clinton is a crook, and I
think people perceive this as election-year-politics as usual."
   The Watergate scandal brought down the Nixon administration
more than 20 years ago. Charles Colson, a top Nixon aide who went
to jail for his role in the scandal, says he is surprised at the
public indifference over the FBI files case, in particular:
   "When I went to prison for giving one FBI file to a reporter,
there was incredible moral outrage. I walked in the courthouse
and had people spitting at me. There was anger, protesting in the
streets. What happened in Watergate, and this could happen again,
is that for the first eight months, it was kind of like it is
now: People were indifferent. And then suddenly, the [1973] Ervin
hearings [of Senate Watergate committee] started. It was on the
front pages. Suddenly, there was a central question raised: That
is, 'had the president broken his bond, that unspoken law by
which the president relates to the people? Had he lied to them?
Had he really misled them?' as soon as they believed that the
bond may have been broken, then it snapped and became a
widespread everyday, major issue in Watergate. It hasn't happened
in this particular scandal, but the FBI files have the potential
of that happening. If the American people suddenly conclude that
this president has broken trust with them, then it's a very
different issue."
   Mr. Colson adds that, as he sees it, the American people may
be so accustomed to scandal, they don't care anymore:
   "I think we've gotten so used to the 'scandal du jour' that
people are no longer reacting with moral outrage. It's the result
of a profound trend that is taking place in our society: We live
in an era of relativism. So we look at all politicians, and we
say, 'so what? They're scoundrels. Everybody's a scoundrel. Who
knows what's right? Who knows what's wrong?' I think it's a very
dangerous situation. This country can survive an incompetent
president. It can survive a venal president. It can not survive a
morally indifferent electorate. That worries me greatly."
   But other political observers applaud the public's disinterest
in charges of White House scandal. "Newsweek" columnist Joe Klein
says Americans have grown tired of the constant drumbeat of news
media reports of political wrongdoing:
   "I think we have been living though a kind of public disease,
where the bar [ethical standards] has been lowered so, so low
that any last thing is a scandal; even the smallest mistake
becomes a scandal. I think we have held politicians to a really,
ridiculously unnatural standard, and that a hundred years from
now people are going to look back on this period kind of the way
we look back on Salem [Massachusetts, site of witchhunts in
1700's] and say this was a period when the media went a little
bit crazy and tried to make everything into a scandal. I think
people have become inured to scandal and that's probably a good
thing."
   Many analysts say Mr. Clinton's popularity could fade in the
light of more, politically embarrassing revelations or with the
indictment of one or more of his aides. At the same time,
analysts say, Republican presidential candidate Bob Dole would be
wise to run an aggressive campaign on his own and not count on
scandals to weaken the president.
   ---------------

   ---------------
   CATHOLIC CHURCH POSTCARD CAMPAIGN TO OVERTURN ABORTION BILL VETO

   MICHAEL LELAND
   CHICAGO

   The U.S. Roman Catholic church is conducting a nationwide
campaign this weekend aimed at overturning a presidential veto of
anti-abortion legislation.
   The Roman Catholic church has sent about 25-million postcards
to churches across the country, in hopes parishioners will fill
them out and send them to members of Congress. The cards ask
legislators to overturn President Clinton's veto of a bill that
would have banned late-term abortions. The procedure is sometimes
called a partial birth abortion, because the fetus is partly
delivered before it is killed.
   More than a quarter-million of those postcards were sent to
Chicago-area Catholics. Mary Hallan directs the local "Respect
Life" office of the church, and says she's hopeful of a veto
override:
   "It's going to be a very close fight in the senate. We have
about 13 votes that we need to cross over in the Senate. We're
fairly sure we have a veto-proof majority in the House."
   Critics of the postcard campaign say the church is allowing
itself to be used in this year's battle for the presidency.
   President Clinton says he vetoed the late-term abortion ban
because the procedure is sometimes needed to save the mother's
life.
   ---------------

   ---------------
   HOMELESS VOTER DRIVE

   MICHAEL LELAND
   CHICAGO

   In the months before this year's U.S. elections, various
political and civic organizations are busy trying to register as
many voters as possible. In Chicago, one such voter drive is
aimed at getting more of the city's homeless people registered in
time for the elections.
   John Donahue is speaking to a group of about one hundred of
Chicago's homeless people in the basement of a downtown church.
They are here to learn how to register other homeless people to
vote in this fall's elections.
   Until 1992, homeless people in the state of Illinois were not
allowed to vote, because they had no permanent address. But
within months of winning the right to vote, 700 of Chicago's
homeless people registered. This year, they are hoping to
register two thousand people.
   Cook county clerk David Orr tells those in the hall that their
vote gives them a voice in American politics:
   "You do not have the capability to contribute a hundred
thousand dollars to your favorite candidate, which happens every
day. But there are a lot more people out there who can vote as
individuals than people who just have all the money."
   The newly-deputized registrars will go into the Chicago's
streets and homeless shelters, hoping to add to the city's voter
rolls.
   Doris Evans lives in a homeless shelter on Chicago's south
side, and says registering new voters is important work:
   "Yes it is, because without voting, then we can't make a
difference."
   The difference many people in this room are trying to make is
avoiding deep cuts in the country's social service programs.
Welfare reform proposals and talk of cutting spending in
Washington have many homeless and other low-income people worried
that programs that help them will disappear. Carolyn McGill used
to live in a shelter, but now earns enough money for her own
apartment. Still, she's working to make sure the city's homeless
people will have their voice heard on election day:
   "With what's going on with the cuts (federal spending) and
what's going on in our government and what might happen if we
have a majority Republican congress and a Republican president,
we want them to know that our vote counts, that they have to look
out for us, not just those of upper middle class and upper class.
We want to make sure they look out for us with social services."
   Ms. McGill says there are about 80,000 homeless people in
Chicago, and if they all voted, they could make a difference in a
local election, or even the presidential election.
   ---------------

   ---------------
   ILLINOIS GOVERNOR SAYS BUCHANAN SHOULD NOT SPEAK AT GOP CONVENTION

   MICHAEL LELAND
   CHICAGO

   The governor of the Midwestern state of Illinois is suggesting
conservative commentator Pat Buchanan be kept off of the list of
speakers for this year's Republican National Convention.
   Mr. Buchanan's speech four years ago was considered intolerant
by some people, and Illinois Governor Jim Edgar says it did not
help George Bush's re-election chances one bit. Governor Edgar
says that should not be allowed to happen this year:
   "I don't think anyone should speak unless they're going to be
extremely positive and it's going to help Bob Dole win the
election."
   Governor Edgar is the Illinois campaign chairman for Mr. Dole.
He says keeping Mr. Buchanan from speaking at the convention
might upset some party conservatives, but he says Mr. Buchanan is
not the only spokesman for the group.
   The Illinois governor is also praising Mr. Dole's decision
calling for tolerance of Republicans who favor abortion rights.
Governor Edgar supports abortion rights, while Mr. Dole and the
official party line do not. But Mr Edgar says disagreeing with
the party's candidate on a particular issue does not make one a
bad Republican.
   ---------------

   ---------------
   GROUP TRIES TO INTRODUCE HUNGER AS A CAMPAIGN ISSUE

   MICHAEL LELAND
   CHICAGO

   The U.S. presidential elections are coming up in about four
months, and a number of issues appear to be dominating the
candidates' campaign speeches. The federal deficit, welfare
reform and abortion are topics Americans have heard plenty about,
and will hear more of in the coming months. In Chicago, a
coalition of anti-hunger organization leaders says hunger needs
to be a major issue, especially hunger among American children.
   The coalition says hunger is an issue that should interest all
Americans, because everybody needs to eat. But they say many
Americans forget that in this prosperous country, there are
millions of people who don't get enough to eat, mostly because
they're too poor to buy food. Rob Fersh of the Washington-based
food research and action center says both President Clinton and
Republican Bob Dole have good track records on hunger issues, and
he's hopeful they'll pay more attention to the issue in the
coming months:
   "Senator Dole has at least until recent year had a very strong
record. It has lapsed a little in recent years, but he has spoken
eloquently about his commitment to these programs; his pride in
having helped establish various programs. We would hope that
between him and President Clinton the kinds of commitments would
get made in the next couple of months so that no Congress next
year would contemplate the radical and risky ideas that have been
debated in Congress this year."
   Mr. Fersh says the budget-cutting mood in Washington these
past couple of years has not been kind to nutrition programs, and
that much of the proposed spending cuts discussed in welfare
reform plans could mean less money for programs that help
families with children buy food.
   Mr. Fersh was among a number of anti-hunger organization
leaders meeting in Chicago to discuss how to make childhood
hunger a larger campaign issue this year. They say the issue has
popular support: They cite a recent national poll by the Neilsen
company suggesting 95-percent of Americans want hunger addressed
in this year's campaigns.
   The Reverend John Spruhan helps run a soup kitchen at his
episcopal church on the northwest side of Chicago. He says while
lawmakers in Washington talk about ways to cut programs, the
number of people who need help is not being reduced:
   "We have seen a consistent level of need. It is not
decreasing. In our area (of the city) it is slightly increasing.
In the inner city in other (food) pantries that we are in touch
with, the need is drastically increasing."
   And Reverend Spruhan says many of the people who need help are
families with children.
   Doctor Larry Brown directs the center on hunger, poverty and
nutrition policy at Tufts University in the state of
Massachusetts. He says malnutrition is especially dangerous for
children:
   "Even mild undernutrition, the kind that is evident on a
widespread basis among children in our country, robs the
cognitive capacities of children and does so on a permanent
basis. That is, we send these children to school with one arm
tied behind their backs (at a disadvantage), we expect the
schools to make up the deficit and they can't do it. And we
produce people who are going to be cognitively impaired for a
lifetime."
   The organization leaders say they applaud efforts in
Washington aimed at encouraging Americans to donate to charities,
but say charitable giving will never be enough to replace
government-funded nutrition programs.
   The issue of hunger not just in the United States, but
throughout the world, will get more attention this November at
the world food summit in Rome. Recently, in the Midwestern state
of Michigan, delegates from the United States and Canada met to
discuss the upcoming summit.
   David Beckmann is president of the Washington-based Bread for
the World Institute, and says in fighting global hunger, like in
the United States, what's needed most of all is the political
will to address the problem:
   "I think it's obvious that there are lots of things we could
do to reduce poverty and hunger in the world that we don't do
because when push comes to shove, other things are more
politically important. So in my mind the main thing that needs to
happen to overcome hunger in the world is to decide politically
that it is important for us to do."
   About 200 nations will attend the summit, and discuss ways of
making sure everyone in the world can get enough to eat. Mr.
Beckmann says there are about 800-million people throughout the
world who are malnourished.
   ---------------

   ---------------
   SUPREME COURT: CAMPAIGN SPENDING

   JANE BERGER
   WASHINGTON

   The Supreme Court has struck down a 1971 federal law that
limits campaign spending by political parties. The decision could
change the patterns of campaign spending for the November general
election.
   The Supreme Court ruling gives political parties widespread
authority to spend as they please on behalf of any candidate they
choose. The justices said federal campaign spending limits on
political parties violate the parties' free speech rights
contained in the first amendment to the U.S. constitution.
   The case began in 1986, when Democrats in Colorado challenged
some of the money spent by the state Republican party to defeat a
democratic candidate for the U.S. Senate.
   In a splintered decision, three Supreme Court justices said
limits on campaign spending are unconstitutional under any
circumstances. Three others said limits are unconstitutional as
long as the parties spend the money independently, and do not
coordinate their campaign efforts with individual political
candidates.
   For more than a decade, members of both parties in Congress
have called for tough new restrictions on campaign spending, but
the two sides have failed to reach an agreement. Some legal
experts say the major parties may now be persuaded that limits
are necessary to restore public confidence in the political
process.
   ---------------

   ---------------
   LAWSUIT DELAY GOOD NEWS FOR CLINTON IN WEEK OF FRUSTRATIONS
   By Stuart Gorin

   It was good news for President Clinton this week when the U.S.
Supreme Court agreed to decide whether a sexual-harassment suit
brought against him should be delayed while he remains in office.
   The decision means the suit, brought by former Arkansas state
employee Paula Corbin Jones, will be put on hold until after the
November presidential election.
   Spokesman Mike McCurry said "The White House is pleased that
the court has recognized the merits in the petition put forward
by the president's attorneys." Their argument was that presidents
have "unique responsibilities" and almost never should have to
face trial in private civil lawsuits while in office.
   The suit alleges that Clinton propositioned Jones in a hotel
suite five years ago while he was governor of Arkansas, and that
she had rejected his offer. Clinton denies the charge and calls
it "baseless," but Jones retorted that the president is "a
coward" for ducking a showdown.
   The court likely will hear arguments this fall or winter and
issue a ruling next year.
   Woman's Coalition spokesperson Susan Carpenter McMillan said
Jones "must find great solace in the words of Hillary Rodham
Clinton, who announced to the world after Anita Hill's charges at
the Clarence Thomas confirmation hearings that women do not lie
when it comes to harassment."
   "This is not exactly a great legal triumph for the president;
all the court agreed to do was to hear the case," said ABC News
correspondent Brit Hume. "But it was a great relief for a White
House that has had little relief in the past week."
   The so-called Filegate incident has been one of the
frustrations for the White House, with the furor growing over the
collection of Federal Bureau of Investigation files on
Republicans, including former White House officials. At first it
was believed there were between 300-400 files involved, but
additional recent disclosures put the number in excess of 700.
   White House spokesman McCurry said the president is "very
angry" about his inability to obtain satisfactory answers to
questions about the improper collection.
   Craig Livingstone, personnel security chief at the White
House, told a congressional committee he was unaware of the file
requests but that ultimately he was responsible for failing to
adequately supervise lower level employees, and he was resigning
his position.
   Several key administration officials meanwhile appeared on
national television news programs to declare the White House
innocent of Watergate-style misdeeds, but even some Democrats
expressed criticism of the activity.
   And Republicans voiced suspicions of a darker motive. Former
Reagan White House chief of staff Kenneth Duberstein said he
thought the White House personnel security office had been
"trolling for trash" and Congressman William Clinger, chairman of
the House Government Reform and Oversight Committee, said it
appears the administration "is attempting to sort of have
designated scapegoats" in the personnel security office.
   Adding to Clinton's frustrations this week were reports that
First Lady Hillary Rodham Clinton -- in a session with a
researcher in psychic experiences -- held an imaginary
conversation with Eleanor Roosevelt, who died in 1962, and with
Indian leader Mohandas Gandhi, who died in 1948.
   Neither the president nor the first lady commented on the
report, which appeared in a new book by Bob Woodward of the
Washington Post, but White House Chief of Staff Leon Panetta said
"to describe it as a consultation with psychics is to try to put
it in the wrong frame." Mrs. Clinton "sat down with friends and
advisers, talked through experiences, sought information, sought
knowledge. And I think that's human," Panetta said.
   And a new biography of the president by Roger Morris says that
during his Rhodes Scholar days at Oxford, "young Bill Clinton was
an informant" for the Central Intelligence Agency, "paid to spy
on his friends and classmates, reporting anti-war activities in
London." The book also says Clinton's "connection to the CIA
continued through his tenure" as governor of Arkansas.
   The White House, in a terse statement, called the allegations
"bizarre."
   ---------------

   ---------------
   DOLE SAYS CLINTON TURNS "BLIND EYE" TOWARD RUSSIA

   Republican presidential hopeful Bob Dole has accused President
Clinton of turning a blind eye on Russian violations of arms
control agreements and signals that communist forces were
regrouping in Russia.
   Addressing the Philadelphia World Affairs Council June 25 on
U.S. foreign policy, Dole said "In an era of tectonic shifts in
world affairs, we must not continue to entrust American
leadership to would-be statesmen still suffering from a
post-Vietnam syndrome... who are still suffering from the
illusion that communism merely fell instead of being pushed."
   He said that Clinton has "given a green light to the most
dangerous tendencies in the new Russia" by remaining passive in
the face of troubling developments.
   Dole did express basic agreement with the president on some
policies, but took issue with the pace and degree of initiatives.
He said Clinton has been "deliberately slow" in urging NATO's
expansion to include former Soviet-bloc states.
   Dole set a goal of 1998 for admitting Poland, Hungary and the
Czech Republic into the Western alliance, but hedged on the more
controversial question (to Russia) of offering membership to the
Baltic nations, saying only that they "rightly aspire" to NATO
security.
   Concerning Bosnia, Dole said that Clinton's deployment of
troops to the former Yugoslavia could have been avoided if not
for the president's "vacillating policy" on lifting the arms
embargo. As Senate majority leader, Dole grudgingly agreed to the
deployment last year.
   Unless the Clinton administration now moves vigorously to
train and arm the Bosnians for self-defense, Dole said, Americans
risk being trapped in an "open-ended commitment."
   ---------------

   ---------------
   BOUTROS-GHALI BECOMES ISSUE IN PRESIDENTIAL RACE

   Although Clinton administration officials deny the
speculation, diplomatic observers feel the re-election of U.N.
Secretary General Boutros Boutros-Ghali to a second term was
becoming a foreign policy issue in the upcoming U.S. presidential
election, and thus pushed the administration to make a very early
announcement on the candidacy of the 73-year-old Egyptian
diplomat.
   The selection of a U.N. secretary general usually would not be
discussed until November or December, nevertheless the Clinton
administration surprised the international community by letting
it be known through a story in the New York Times June 20 that it
would not support Boutros-Ghali for a second five-year term.
   U.S. officials said the precedent-setting announcement
reflected domestic, partisan politics only in the sense that the
administration is concerned about getting hundreds of millions of
dollars for the United Nations from an increasingly critical
Republican Congress. The decision that the world body needs a
stronger manager more committed to fiscal reform was made in
December 1995, long before the Republican field of U.S.
presidential candidates had narrowed to Bob Dole.
   But prominent Republicans -- including Dole, Senate Foreign
Relations Committee Chairman Jesse Helms and presidential
candidate Pat Buchanan -- have been critical of the United
Nations -- making an issue of U.S. participation in U.N.
peacekeeping missions, and using the secretary general and the
U.N. as examples of foreign influence on a weak U.S. foreign
policy. Republicans in both the House and Senate had also
threatened to make the issue part of the fall campaigns.
   ---------------

   ---------------
   WHITE EVANGELICAL CHRISTIANS NOW REPUBLICAN BASE PLURALITY

   White evangelical Christians now constitute a slightly larger
share of the Republican Party base than the mainline white
Protestants who provided the party's core of support for
generations, according to the Pew Research Center for the People
and the Press.
   Since the evangelicals -- who identify themselves as "born
again" and cross denominational lines -- are a strongly
conservative group at the center of the internal Republican
struggle over abortion, the Pew organization says their findings
"underscore the problems facing Bob Dole as he tries to reach out
to Republicans who take more moderate views on social issues."
   But, points out Andrew Kohut, the head of Pew, if the
evangelicals "are seen as driving the party too much, they may
alienate as many voters as they bring in."
   A Pew study of the diminishing divide between religion and
politics in the United States also shows that the concept of a
united Catholic voting bloc is a thing of the past. Once
dependably Democratic, Catholics today divide their vote evenly
among Democratic, Republican and independent parties.
   The study also found that regardless of religion or
denomination, people who express more faith and are more
religiously active are more politically conservative. And a
majority of Americans now believe that churches should speak out
on political and social issues. This is a reversal of what the
majority believed a generation ago. African American churches
provide the most politicking from the pulpit and mainline
Protestant congregations the least, according to the Pew study.
   Pew conducted its study by surveying 1,975 adults randomly
selected across the United States, and analyzing the results of
four other polls taken during the past two years.
   The research organization determined not only that religion
"is a strong and growing force in the way Americans think about
politics" but that its "increasing influence on political opinion
and behavior rivals factors such as race, region, age, social
class and gender."
   ---------------

   ---------------
   DEMOCRATS UNVEIL "FAMILIES FIRST" LEGISLATIVE AGENDA

   Seeking to move the Democratic Party to the political center
and appeal to middle class swing voters, a group of legislators
from the Senate and House of Representatives have unveiled a
"families first" legislative agenda which includes tax break,
health, education and crime proposals.
   Most of the points already have been introduced by President
Clinton or Democratic lawmakers, so not too much is new. But the
initiatives were presented as a package during a satellite linkup
between five locations throughout the country. Lawmakers answered
scripted questions posed by pre-selected citizens. And Democratic
leaders now plan to carry their message door-to-door in an effort
to win back Congress from the Republicans.
   The agenda is reminiscent of the House Republicans' 1994
Contract With America, but the Democrats reject the comparison so
strongly that some have dubbed their program the "Uncontract."
   The Republicans won control of the House of Representatives in
1994 with the help of their conservative contract. But most of
their agenda, although passed in the House, either foundered in
the Senate or fell to a presidential veto.
   The Democratic legislators said specific bills on their agenda
would be introduced next year, after the election. There was no
price tag put on the proposals.
   In the view of the Washington Post, the Democratic agenda
"represents the party's effort to shed its public image as the
party of big government and position itself in the voters' minds
as the defender of average Americans."
   ---------------

   ---------------
   CAMPAIGN TRAIL TIDBITS

   -- Campaign Finance: The Senate June 25 killed legislation to
overhaul Congress' campaign finance laws, dashing an opportunity
to reduce the influence of money in election campaigns and close
loopholes that donors use to avoid accountability. Opponents of
the measure said it would have restricted free-speech rights of
citizens, businesses, unions and organizations. Supporters,
vowing to try again next year, said voters would express their
dissatisfaction with the opponents at the polls. Said Senate
Majority Leader Trent Lott, "It is very hard to get campaign
finance reform in an election year, when passions are running too
high."
   -- Abortion Protests: Saying they "must not allow the pro-life
message to be redefined," a group of abortion opponents have
begun a series of demonstrations throughout the United States
against Republicans who support abortion rights. The leaders of
the protest, Operation Rescue founder Randall Terry and Christian
Defense Coalition head Reverend Patrick Mahoney, said if
presidential candidate Bob Dole carries out plans to soften the
anti-abortion plank at the Republican National Convention, he
risks losing more votes than he would gain. The group protested
in Boston and planned later visits to New York, New Jersey and
California.
   -- Buchanan: A spokesman for Pat Buchanan says there has been
"no change" in the conservative commentator's position that he
will attend the Republican National Convention and leave as a
Republican. The remarks were in response to a report that
Buchanan might be available as a third-party presidential
candidate for the U.S. Taxpayer's Party. Howard Phillips, the
leader of that group, had said that following a lengthy
conversation with Buchanan, he came away with the impression that
if Bob Dole attempts to soften the Republican platform
anti-abortion plank and the Taxpayers Party appears to have
enough support to mount a credible effort, "Buchanan would
consider joining us."
   -- Reform Party: The first nominating convention for Ross
Perot's new Reform Party will be convened on two Sundays in
mid-August, first in Long Beach, California on August 11, and
then in Valley Forge, Pennsylvania on August 18. Party officials
said the bicoastal locations are designed to encourage broad
attendance. Voting for a presidential candidate is to be done by
mail, phone or computer, but thus far, no one has declared for
the party's nomination.
   -- Lenora Fulani: Advocating a "partnership between the black
community and the Perot voter," fringe presidential candidate
Lenora Fulani says "together with a growing number of
African-American activists, I am involved in building the Reform
Party." In 1992, although not on the ballot in all states, Fulani
ran under the banner of the New Alliance Party, which she called
a "black-led, women-led, multiracial, pro-gay" organization.
There's no indication whether Ross Perot wants her on the Reform
Party ticket.
   -- Emerson: There is "political turmoil" in Missouri following
the death June 22 of Congressman Bill Emerson, who had inoperable
lung cancer but was still running for a ninth term. Several
political unknowns also are on the ballot in both parties for the
state's August 6 primary election, but none of the leading
politicians registered to challenge the popular Emerson. And now
they could be locked out of the process because of a state law,
passed last year, that says registering for the office will not
be allowed past the filing deadline. There has been some talk of
challenging the law, but Missouri Secretary of State Bekki Cook
expresses confidence that it would be upheld.
   -- Alabama, Utah Races: Primary runoff voters in Alabama June
25 selected Republican State Attorney General Jeff Sessions and
Democratic State Senator Roger Bedford as the two combatants in
the November race to succeed retiring Democratic Senator Howell
Heflin. In Utah, where a financial scandal forced Republican
Congresswoman Enid Greene to abandon re-election plans, primary
voters selecting candidates to succeed her chose a businessman
who has lost six bids for office, and a liberal Democrat making
his first try in the conservative state.
   -- Virginia Senate Race: In Virginia, where it will be
Warner-vs-Warner for the Senate, Democrat Mark has won the first
round -- a lottery that will place his name on the November
ballot ahead of the Republican incumbent, Senator John.
Ordinarily, ranking doesn't mean anything on the ballot, but
observers believe it could be different for the two Warners, who
are unrelated, because under Virginia law, the ballot will only
list the candidates' names, without mentioning party affiliation
or incumbency.
   -- CONVENTION DELEGATE ISSUE: A stance on abortion is not
necessarily an issue in the selection of Republican National
Convention delegates in some states -- perhaps not in most states
-- but it is in Texas. Anti-abortion forces in Texas are working
to guarantee that the national delegates to be selected at the
state Republican convention will vote to keep their stance intact
in the party platform. "Every single delegate counts. If we send
a pro-life delegation, that will send an important message to the
national platform committee," said Colleen Parro of the
Republican National Coalition for Life. The issue has generated
controversy across the state as the faction has threatened to
block Senator Kay Hutchison as a delegate because she has spoken
in favor of changing the platform's abortion plank.
   -- ANTI-ABORTION DEMOCRATS: While Republicans are squabbling
over the abortion plank proposed for their party platform, and
Democrats expect to continue with traditional abortion rights
language in their own document, a small group of anti-abortion
Democrats are urging the inclusion of a "conscience clause." Says
Ohio Congressman Tony Hall, "We just think we lose a lot of
Democrats who go over to the other side because they can't
stomach that this is the party of abortionists. We're not looking
for a fight. We're looking for a peaceful resolution."
   -- PEROT FUNDS: The Federal Election Commission (FEC), which
is responsible for authorizing federal matching funds for
presidential candidates, says if millionaire businessman Ross
Perot runs under the banner of his new Reform Party, he will be
eligible for $30 million based upon his 1992 campaign, when he
received 19 percent of the vote as an independent candidate. Four
years ago he spent $60 million of his own money and criticized
the other candidates for taking public funds. This time, if he
runs and accepts the money, he would be limited to spending only
$50,000 of his personal funds on the campaign. Since the Reform
Party has not yet named a candidate, the FEC is not yet prepared
to state whether a candidate other than Perot would be eligible
for the matching funds.
   -- LIBERTARIAN PARTY: The national chairman of the Libertarian
Party, Stephen Dasbach, says his organization's membership and
fund raising income are both on the rise, and he attributes it to
the fact that "finally, we've really focused on the nuts and
bolts of building a political party." The party is holding its
national convention in Washington on the Fourth of July and hopes
the selection of a quality presidential candidate will shove them
more into the limelight. In the past, the Libertarians, who were
founded in 1971 and believe in devolving federal responsibilities
to state and local governments, focused more on talking about
philosophy than on running credible campaigns.
   -- GREEN PARTY: Consumer activist Ralph Nader ran unopposed on
the Green Party ticket in California's presidential primary
election, but he says he doesn't want to do traditional
campaigning and he won't run on the party's platform, which
includes support for same-sex marriages. Nader says his
priorities are "stressing the tools of democracy," focusing on
"corporate power abuses," and destroying the two-party monopoly
in the United States. According to Green Party activist Mike
Feinstein, "It's not that he's disassociating himself from us.
He's just making us do all the work."
   -- ARKANSAS SENATE RACE: Republicans meeting in Arkansas June
15 unanimously selected Congressman Tim Hutchinson to run against
Democrat Winston Bryant, the state attorney general, for the U.S.
Senate seat being vacated by retiring Democrat David Pryor.
Hutchinson replaces Lieutenant Governor Mike Huckabee, who won
the Republican primary election for senator, but has opted
instead to replace Governor Jim Guy Tucker, who is resigning
following his Whitewater felony conviction.
   -- Media Research Center: Launching a campaign to spotlight
what it anticipates as a "liberal bias" in political reporting
this year, the conservative Media Research Center says it will
employ "the politics of shame" by calling alleged incidents of
bias to the public's attention. Brent Bozell, the center's
chairman, says it will send faxes to more than 1,000 journalists
and issue reports to conservative activists and talk show hosts.
When the two parties hold their nominating conventions in August,
the center will arrange for conservative experts to brief on key
campaign issues and analyze the news media's coverage.
   -- Dole-Nunn Ticket?: On a relatively light news days, reports
surfaced that the head of the committee searching for a vice
presidential running mate for Bob Dole "wanted" retiring
Democratic Senator Sam Nunn. Republicans expressed consternation
over the reports and one official said the idea "belongs in the
comic section of your newspaper." The flurry settled down when
Nunn himself scoffed at the unlikely pairing, and stressed to
reporters that as a good Democrat he supported President Clinton.
   -- Ohio Debate?: A school and a newspaper in Ohio want to
arrange a Clinton-Dole debate. No time or place have been
specified, and no word yet if the principals will agree. But the
University of Toledo and the Toledo Blade said they were
"delighted" to have issued the invitations to First Lady Hillary
Rodham Clinton and Elizabeth Hanford Dole, who is on leave of
absence as head of the American Red Cross.
   ---------------

   ---------------
   POLLING PRISMS

   -- Zogby Poll: Despite the many public opinion polls showing
President Clinton with a commanding lead over Republican Bob
Dole, a new survey by the John Zogby Group has that lead
dwindling to 5.6 percent. Zogby said he attributed the difference
to the other polls "oversampling Democrats, who support Clinton 7
to 1." The Zogby poll was taken June 14-19 among 901 likely
voters nationally and was conducted for the Kuwait daily
newspaper Al Qabas.
   -- Washington Post-ABC News Poll: A new Washington Post-ABC
News survey found that the president holds a 55 percent to 35
percent lead over the presumed Republican nominee. The sampling
of 796 registered voters interviewed June 14-18 suggests that
Clinton's support has changed little since mid-May.
   -- Field: Pollster Mervin Field calls California "Clinton
country" and says that while the president's lead over Bob Dole
"may have tightened up nationally and it may have tightened up in
other states, but certainly not in California." The public sees
Dole as having more personal character, Field points out, but
"they rate Clinton higher on the issues that are important to
them. And issues matter more to them than character."
   -- Kohut: Since voter preferences early in a political
campaign sometimes are weakly held, surveys at that time often
differ significantly, says polling expert Andrew Kohut, director
of the Pew Research Center for People and the Press. He says when
there is a "short polling period, intensive bad news could affect
the results."
   ---------------

   ---------------
   JOURNALISTIC JUXTAPOSITIONS

   -- Baltimore Sun columnists Jack Germond and Jules Witcover:
"The latest rhubarb over the Clinton White House acquisition of
FBI files on former Reagan and Bush administration figures
illustrates once again the political peril facing any president
from the conduct of underlings.... The real culprit more often
than not is somebody further down the roster, and good politics
as well as good government should require that such people pay a
price rather than be allowed to hide behind a general
presidential assumption of blame."
   -- Syndicated columnist Donald Lambro: "The 1996 presidential
campaign, more than anything else, will be a referendum on Bill
Clinton's presidency, a time for voters to evaluate what he has
done in his first term and whether he deserves re-election to
another.... Mr. Clinton enters this volatile election season the
same way he began his presidency, without a serious, credible and
well-focused agenda for reform that concentrates on the big
domestic issues of our era."
   -- Washington Post writer E.J. Dionne: "The new argument is
that regulating the political system is hopeless.... Of course
critics of reform are right in saying that there is no way to
legislate a perfect system. But the point of campaign reform is
more modest: to place reasonable limits on money's influence on
politics."
   -- Congressional Quarterly writer Stephen Gettinger: "One
verdict of the 1996 election is already in: The 'Republican
Revolution' of 1994, as an ideological construct, never happened.
Yes, the Republican tidal wave of 1994 shook Capitol Hill to its
foundations. But while the country clearly was sick of the
Democrats in 1994, it just as clearly is not ready for the hard
turn to the right that Speaker Newt Gingrich and House
Republicans tried to bring about.... As a national referendum on
philosophy of governance, this election is half over, and it
seems clear that movement conservatives have lost their
movement."
   -- Washington Times writer Donald Lambro: "By triggering a
divisive platform fight over abortion, Bob Dole has let himself
get drawn into a needless squabble that threatens to undermine
party unity and weaken his presidential prospects.... Every exit
poll during the party primaries found that economic and fiscal
issues were far and away the dominant concerns of voters this
year. No other issue came even close. Mr. Dole needs to make this
election about declining middle-class incomes and fewer
better-paying jobs and excessive tax rates that have stunted
economic growth. Anything that gets in the way of these issues
and his message on them undermines his campaign."
   -- Baltimore Sun columnists Jack Germond and Jules Witcover:
"The Bob Dole who was on display in his sometimes humorous and
always moving farewell speech to his colleagues the other day
bore no relationship to the dark and sometimes bitter figure you
hear on the campaign stump and in occasional moments of pique....
Mr. Dole still needs to lay out in a more coherent fashion what
his own agenda as president will be -- not Mr. Gingrich's or
anybody else's. It would be a good start if he could manage to
transform the Bob Dole who said goodbye to the Senate in such a
warm, generous and civil way into candidate Dole."
   -- Washington Post writer David Broder: "The two major parties
go into this November election with mirror-image split
personalities. Dole is the classic Midwesterner, representing a
Republican Party whose chairman, Haley Barbour, is from
Mississippi, whose congressional leadership is entirely southern
and border state, and whose strongest electoral base is in Dixie
(the deep South). Clinton is a classic small-town southerner,
representing a Democratic Party whose top official, Senator
Christopher Dodd, is from Connecticut, whose congressional
leaders are mainly from the Midwest, and whose strongest
electoral base is found along the northern tier of the country,"
   -- U.S. News and World Report correspondent Ken Walsh: "The
character issue will be very important in the media, and in the
electorate in assessing Bill Clinton, and the notion of Dole
being too much of a Washington insider, that's going to be very
important on the other side. But the positive side of both
candidates will almost be lost. I'm sorry to say that but I think
that's probably what's going to happen. There will be a basic
unfairness to both major party candidates, I'm afraid, because
both of them do have some important programs and traits and ideas
to offer."
   -- USA Today columnist Tony Snow: "A series of political and
moral defeats engineered by fellow members of the Republican
Party forced conservatives onto the defensive last week as
Senator John Warner of Virginia thrashed conservative challenger
James Miller.... The victory marks the latest aftershock of the
1994 elections. When the Gingrich Brigades marched on Washington,
they promised a 'revolution.' But cocky members of the Republican
Party misread the plebiscite. They thought they had a mandate to
pull up the streets in Washington and create a whole new form of
government. Voters seemed to have something else in mind,
however. They wanted smaller government, but they wanted to pare
down the federal system slowly and methodically."
   ---------------

   ---------------
   EDITORIAL EXCERPTS

   -- Baltimore Sun: "Republican leaders have good reason to fear
following the takeover of the Republican state convention in
Texas by religious conservatives. Of the 123 delegates chosen, as
many as 90 are pledged to a no-exceptions anti-abortion plank and
to the nomination of a pro-life running mate on Bob Dole's
national ticket.... Self-immolation of the Republican Party on
the abortion issue, if that is to be its fate, comes at a time
when the Republicans could be capitalizing on President Clinton's
embarrassment over the White House mishandling of FBI personnel
files and First Lady Hillary Rodham Clinton's reported
'conversations' with the spirit of Eleanor Roosevelt."
   -- Washington Times: "Among the many phrases used to sum up
the last two weeks' Filegate revelations, perhaps the most
frequently applied has been 'the arrogance of power'.... Does
anyone doubt that had this been a Republican administration and
the confidential files of hundreds of Democrats found stashed in
a vault, the sky would have fallen and all hell broken loose? But
somehow, Republicans are different. In this White House,
supposedly the most 'ethical in history,' other rules apply to
Republicans and to the people who had worked for them."
   -- Wall Street Journal: "To anyone who still believes
Whitewater is about some long-ago events in faraway Arkansas, we
recommend the 1,200-page report by the Senate Whitewater
Committee. Whether you agree or not with the majority's
conclusions, it's impossible to read their report and not find
that Whitewater has everything to do with the character of the
Clinton presidency. The presidency's character surely is going to
become one of the central voting issues of the November
election."
   -- Philadelphia Inquirer: "What's Whitewater? That's hard to
say even after a nearly interminable investigation led by Senator
Alphonse D'Amato, an expert on sleaze.... It is unfortunate that
Mr. D'Amato's panel had to split along party lines, with the
Republicans trying to create Watergate II, while the Democrats
blithely slough off the administration's ham-handed efforts to
hide and obscure information."
   -- Daily Astorian (Oregon): "The only way to get out of this
mess is for Bill Clinton to imitate Lyndon Johnson and for Bob
Dole to smell the coffee.... Clinton barely merits our respect.
Dole is making the right political moves but a president must
have a vision. Dole doesn't. And he's too old. Vice President
Albert Gore would be a defensible presidential candidate. The
Republican Party would spill blood in finding a replacement for
Dole. But doing that would be a boon to the Republic."
   EDITORIAL EXCERPTS
   -- St. Louis Post-Dispatch: "In trying to explain away the
matter of the 340 confidential FBI files on former Bush and
Reagan administration officials, the White House insists that it
was all a matter of incompetence, which in the case of the
Clinton White House, is certainly a plausible explanation....
Everything may have happened just as the White House says.
However, given the administration's history of misplacing or
removing documents and of producing a fresh wave of explanations
with each embarrassing disclosure, President Bill Clinton should
not be surprised if the public is skeptical of this latest
story."
   -- Nashville Tennessean: "The Clinton administration needs to
fully assure the public that this was not some dirty-tricks
political caper. Most of all, it needs to assure federal public
servants, most of whom work for modest wages and little
recognition, that their privacy will not be needlessly invaded.
The files foul-up could be quickly explained and dismissed, or it
could become an albatross for candidate Clinton. The
administration's own handling of this matter will be the
determining factor."
   -- Roll Call: "Never before has the High Court decided to
throw out majority-minority districts in the middle of an
election year, after primaries have already been held. Now, North
Carolina and Texas are faced with a quandary: Hold this fall's
elections under lines that have been declared unconstitutional,
or else spend millions of dollars to redraw the lines and hold
new primaries, all under the threat of a rapidly ticking
election-year clock.... What the latest Supreme Court rulings do
is make the path forward murkier than ever."
   -- Washington Times: "The slow transfer of power in Congress
over the last couple of decades from Southern Democrats to
Southern Republicans has been one of the most remarkable
political developments of this era. Less noticed is the way
President Clinton has managed to exploit the brutality of
Republican budget cuts to bring about his own political rebirth.
These developments suggest that the ascent of the Republican
Party's new Dixie leadership may produce its own counteraction if
those leaders practice winner-take-all politics."
   ---------------

   ---------------
   CONGRESS/WHITE HOUSE COMPROMISE OVER SUBPOENAED DOCUMENTS

   PAULA WOLFSON
   CONGRESS

   The Clinton White House and congressional investigators have
reached an agreement on access to thousands of pages of
subpoenaed documents. The Republican leadership in the House of
Representatives had threatened strong action to get the papers.
   These documents concern the 1993 firings of seven longtime
White House staffers, men entrusted with making travel
arrangements for the press contingent that accompanies the
president.
   The House committee on government reform and oversight
requested the documents months ago. When the White House failed
to comply, Republicans in the House said they would seek a vote
on a contempt-of-congress resolution.
   That vote was scheduled for Thursday. Instead, members of the
committee and top aides will spend the day viewing the documents.
They will not be able to make copies. But there is an
understanding that if they find any evidence of wrong doing, it
will be made public. Republican Bill Clinger (of Pennsylvania)
chairs the committee:
   "I am pleased that President Clinton has decided not to
continue with-holding these subpoenaed documents from Congress
and really only regret that it has taken so long to come to that
conclusion."
   The committee is also looking into the White House acquisition
of more than four hundred confidential files compiled by the
Federal Bureau of Investigation. Principals in the case will
testify before the panel on Wednesday.
   ---------------

   ---------------
   CAMPAIGN '96: PRESIDENTIAL DEBATES

   TOM MAHONEY
   WASHINGTON

   Tens of millions of people in the United States and around the
world are expected to be watching and listening when candidates
for president hold their first debate September 25th at
Washington University in the Midwestern city of St. Louis,
Missouri. This is the first of four such events sponsored by
Commission on Presidential Debates [CPD].
   Candidates for vice president meet in Hartford, Connecticut
October 2nd. The last two presidential debates will be held in
St. Petersburg, Florida [Oct. 9th] and San Diego, California
[Oct. 16th].
   The CPD's voter education program this year is called Debate
Watch '96. It's an attempt to get American voters, at home and
abroad, talking about the candidates and issues.
   The Commission on Presidential Debates is a nonprofit,
nonpartisan organization. It has sponsored all the general
election presidential debates since 1988. Debate Watch '96
project director Diana Carlin says this year's effort is based on
comments from more than 600 people, members of focus groups who
watched the 1992 presidential debates, looking for ways to
improve this year's debates:
   "They watched the debates together and then talked with
people, most of whom they had not met prior to the evening of the
debate. They found that they watched the debates more
attentively, that they were able to understand differing opinions
on the issues...The complexity of the issues.
   "They recommended that we find a way in 1996 to have people
all over the country sitting in living rooms, places of worship,
schools, community centers, wherever. And do what they did and
that was simply not just listen and watch, but talk. They felt it
built community and it did help them understand the whole process
more... And they felt more a part of the process."
   Diana Carlin is associate professor of communication studies
at the University of Kansas and has written extensively about
presidential debates. She believes experiences like Debate Watch
'96 may increase citizen participation in the political process
and could lead to greater voter turnout. Professor Carlin
anticipates significant interest this campaign season:
   "Potentially, we could have millions of citizens, not only in
the United States, but abroad, listening and watching to the
debates and participating in these programs. We have had some
national sponsors, such as the National Association of
Broadcasters that has informed all of its member stations around
the country about the program and has suggested ways they can
actually promote it.
   "The National League of Cities has endorsed [the program] and
some mayors and city council members around the country are going
to participating in the project. One mayor, in fact, is going to
open up community center in his city and encourage people in the
neighborhoods around those community centers to watch on
large-screen tv and then break up into small groups."
   Diana Carlin says dozens of other organizations, including the
League of Women Voters, have been contacted to help publicize
what she describes as a major grass roots effort with
far-reaching impact:
   "We've also talked with the Department of Defense and the
person in charge of Americans living abroad and their voting
programs who's going to be distributing information that way.
Plus, we'll have an Internet component. We'll have discussion
groups over the Internet."
   Professor Carlin received a $200,000 grant from the Ford
Foundation to coordinate Debate Watch '96 research out of the
University of Kansas. those wishing to participate in the program
will receive a packet of materials, which includes ideas for the
facilitator of the group as well as suggestions about how to get
the most out of watching a debate. Diana Carlin also says the
size of each group watching the debates is important:
   "There's been a lot of research on small groups and what's the
most effective size of the group. Typically eight to ten, or
twelve is the most effective. If you have fewer than eight
people, you don't have as much diversity of opinion. If you have
more than twelve, you get to the point where a few people tend to
dominate [the discussion] because it's more difficult to pull
everyone in."
   Diana Carlin hopes Debate Watch '96 participants will listen
carefully to the candidates' remarks. As one who has coached
debate, she believes it's best to concentrate on the candidates'
positions on the issues:
   "The main thing that people need to take from a debate is not
that sense of winners and losers, but what did they learn about
the candidates, what did they learn about the issues and, more
importantly, what didn't they learn that they still want to know
about.
   "One of the things we have built into Debate Watch is a
feedback form, a one-pager that can be faxed to us or e-mailed to
us. And then we're going to announce within about 36 hours of the
debate a summary of what people around the country who have sent
that information back have told us they still want to hear in the
debates or things that were not clear. Then we're hoping in
subsequent debates and on the campaign trail that those things
are clarified and discussed."
   Concerning the kinds of issues, Diana Carlin notes that most
of those watching the debates in 1992 were more interested in
domestic matters than foreign policy issues. The way this year's
debates will be set up, she explains, about half of the time will
be spent on foreign policy and half devoted to domestic issues.
   According to Diana Carlin, the debate Watch '96 format will
provide a sense of community and involvement, an environment they
hope will encourage people to better understand the issues and
feel more comfortable about the candidates. The most important
result, she hopes, is that people will vote and get involved in
the political process, maybe even running for political office
themselves.
   ---------------

   ---------------
   U.S. OPINION ROUNDUP: CAMPAIGN REFORM

   JENNIFER L. BRANT
   WASHINGTON

   This Thursday, the U.S. Senate will vote on a bipartisan bill
to reform political campaign financing. Dubbed the 'Clean
Congress Act', the bill would limit campaign contributions by
political action committees, corporations and other special
interest groups. The bill is part of an effort to limit what some
see as growing financial corruption in political campaigns, and
includes proposals for government subsidies to help offset
campaign expenses for such things as mass mailings and television
and radio advertising. Sixty votes are needed to keep debate on
the bill alive in the senate, and editorial writers are
discussing both the pros and cons of reform, as well as the
bill's chances for success.
   Many American dailies are expressing support for congressional
efforts to reform campaign funding. Some papers say that
candidates spend too much effort appealing to lobbyists and
interest groups, rather than giving their attention to the needs
of their constituents. The Dallas Morning News, a leading Texas
daily, is in favor of reform, but adds that the passage of one
bill can't solve the entire problem. It writes:
   "The Senate has a chance to re-energize grassroots democracy.
Senators...should approve it. That vote would show [that]
senators want to diminish the influence of moneyed interest
groups and elevate the interests of average voters... The bill
isn't perfect. If it becomes law, [Lobbyists and candidates] will
test it and they will eventually find some weakness, and the
dollars will again inundate campaigns. But the bill could
restrain the flood of money for a little while. And that's enough
for now."
   In Florida, an editorial in Tuesday's Miami Herald also lends
support to the bill:
   "It is an act to restore 'public' participation in a political
process now so expensive that only corporate America and the
best-financed labor unions can afford to participate... Campaign
finance practices cry out for reform, and this bill offers the
best and fairest hope of reform in many years. Passage is
something Congress should do for itself, and for the nation."
   Linda Smith, a Republican representative in the House, agrees
that campaign reform is necessary and that the clean Congress
bill is a good start. Speaking from first hand experience, she
says that candidates spend too much energy soliciting donations
at fund-raisers and other events. Like the herald, she advocates
a return to a system where voters rather than lobbyists influence
representatives. Her comments appear in Tuesday's Washington
Post:
   "If my fellow members of Congress were asked by their
constituents at a town hall meeting, "how do you raise money in
Washington, DC?", I wonder if they would feel comfortable
painting a picture of what really goes on... The money is too
close to the legislative business. [Constituents] can't be sure
their members are casting votes based on their conscience or the
campaign check they just received. [Representatives] are letting
the voter's confidence in our system erode bit by bit as this
practice continues. If this Congress does anything to reform the
way campaigns are funded, it should at least put an end to the
fund-raisers in Washington and the culture of detachment from the
American people it breeds."
   The St. Louis Post Dispatch declares that it is time to limit
the ability of special interest groups to buy political
influence. The Missouri daily considers spending limits and
public funding for campaign advertising the best way to correct
the system, but is skeptical that this Thursday's vote will be
successful:
   "Unfortunately, the chance of getting the 60 [Senate] votes
needed...Are not good. Too many sitting politicians, both
Republican and Democrat, like the campaign finance system the way
it is because it protects incumbents... But the public is
clamoring for [reform]. Distrust of a political system suffused
with money continues to rise and can be reversed only by major
reforms that reduce the role of political contributions by
special interests."
   Columnist E.J. Dionne Jr. Emphasizes the need for reform by
opposing some of the arguments posed by critics of the clean
Congress bill. Writing in the Washington Post, he challenges
their reasoning for why reform is both unnecessary and
undesirable:
   "A powerful counteroffensive against the very idea of
political reform has been launched. [Speaker of the House Newt]
Gingrich is the most articulate critic of traditional approaches
to reform. He's been joined by others who want to roll back the
public's demand for cleaning up the process by arguing that
regulating the political system is hopeless. But the point of
campaign reform is modest: To place reasonable limits on money's
influence on politics, to give candidates a chance to make their
case, and to give citizens assurance that their government is
more or less on the level... Those goals should not be
abandoned."
   While most media comment tends to favor of the legislation, a
few writers say that campaign spending, regardless of how it is
financed, is not as outrageous as voters are led to believe. The
Christian Science Monitor writes that government restrictions on
candidates limit their ability to express themselves, and
therefore, limit free speech. It encourages the Senate to reject
the bill:
   "[The Clean Congress Act] suggests the way to correct the
problems is with more restrictions. We don't think so... The
desire to police politics better by making the federal government
a meaner watchdog with a longer leash is based on flawed
premises. The first is that the influence of money in politics is
excessive and out of control. In fact, House and Senate races...
Saw about 700 million dollars spent on them in 1994; that's
[only] about half of what Americans spend on yogurt every year.
What is excessive in politics is not the money spent, but the
amount of political power that government in our time has to
regulate behavior... The Senate should vote down the [bill]."
   The Senate began debating the bill on Monday, and the
discussion is scheduled to continue until Thursday's vote.
   ---------------

   ---------------
   INTEREST GROUPS ARE INTEGRAL PART OF U.S. ELECTIONS, EXPERT SAYS

   JIM FISHER-THOMPSON
   WASHINGTON

   To foreigners, what may appear as a chaotic clamor of
thousands of special interest groups vying for the attention of
political candidates at election time in the United States is
actually an important part of public policy formulation in
American democracy, according to lobbyist Donald Simon.
   Simon, who is executive vice president for Common Cause, the
250,000-member U.S. citizens' lobbying (advocacy) organization,
discussed the role of interest groups in the 1996 elections
during a June 25 television interview transmitted abroad by the
U.S. Information Agency's (USIA's) Worldnet satellite broadcast
service.
   The special interest groups he had in mind are civic,
business, professional, religious, and ethnic organizations
formed by citizens at the local and national levels. Their aim is
to lobby lawmakers and other policymakers about particular issues
of importance such as law and order, trade policy, business
regulation, abortion, and racial discrimination.
   National organizations like the American Medical Association,
the National Organization for Women, and the National Association
of Manufacturers also make financial contributions to political
candidates who favor their causes.
   While some political scientists believe that "we have so many
interests seeking out so many benefits from the political system
that we can hardly get anything done," Simon said, "it may be a
good thing that only that policy which can make it through the
gauntlet of organized interests should be the one to be
implemented in the first place."
   After all, he said, in a democracy, government should be in
the business of helping citizens realize their own political and
economic potential rather than trying to engineer solutions to
social problems from above.
   Interestingly, he pointed out that the one area where "certain
organized interests have been able to hold sway" is foreign
policy formulation. As an example, he cited "the role the United
States plays in relation to the Russian Federation."
   In that case, said Simon, "there are major oil companies in
this country who have a great deal of interest in getting in on
the ground floor in Russia -- that is, pumping oil out of its
ground and sending it around the world."
   The White House and government, he added, "have been
instrumental in trying to influence the Russian government to
create laws that would benefit our American interests."
   Simon added that "when I worked on Capitol Hill, I was in very
close contact with the vice president's office, State Department
and Energy Department, and various other entities dealing with
the American oil companies to try to convince the Russians to
create" such laws.
   Responding to a question about the relevance of interest
groups in non-democratic countries, Professor Ronald Shaiko, a
political scientist from the American University, noted that in
the United States, "clearly, the principal leverage point that
interests groups have is in the elections.
   "In a polity where there are not free and competitive
elections," Shaiko said, "I think it is much more difficult for
interest groups to have an effect on the government." But he
added, "I would think one role that they could play is to educate
the public and try to mobilize the public to become more
politically active."
   "You really cannot exist as a democratic society," Simon told
his audience, "until you've reached the point where opposition is
not only legal but really flourishes in a society."
   ---------------

   ---------------
   WHITE HOUSE RESPONDS REPORTS HILLARY CLINTON MEETINGS WITH PSYCHIC

   VICTOR BEATTIE
   WASHINGTON

   A new book by ("Washington Post" editor) Bob Woodward reveals
first lady Hillary Rodham Clinton has held imaginary
conversations with first lady Eleanor Roosevelt and Indian leader
Mohandes Gandhi. White House officials, who have not denied the
report, insist the first lady's sessions with psychic researcher
Jean Houston helped her in the writing of a book and gave her
emotional strength.
   The Woodward book, called "The Choice", deals with life in the
White House, the 1996 presidential campaign and presumptive
Republican presidential nominee Bob Dole. However, media
attention has focused on the sessions between Ms. Houston,
co-director of the foundation of mind research, and Mrs. Clinton.
   Mr. Woodward relates one account he says occurred in April of
1995 in the White House solarium. He writes Ms. Houston asked the
first lady to open herself up to Mrs. Roosevelt as a way of
looking at her own capacities and place in history:
   "In one rather extraordinary moment, in the solarium atop the
White House, Jean Houston asked the first lady to shut her eyes
and carry one an imaginary conversation with Eleanor Roosevelt."
   Mrs. Roosevelt died in 1962, but has been someone Mrs. Clinton
has said she looks to as a role model and for inspiration.
   According to Mr. Woodward, Mrs. Clinton was also led into a
conversation with Indian leader Mohandes Gandhi who died in 1948.
However, she is reported to have declined to attempt to speak to
Jesus Christ.
   Mr. Woodward writes that most people at the White House were
unaware of the sessions and some who did know feared they could
be politically damaging. He compared them with revelations first
lady Nancy Reagan used astrology to affect her husband's
schedule.
   Mrs. Clinton's spokesman, Neel Lattimore, insists all that was
going on was talking at a time she was writing her book on
children called, "It Takes a Village." He says it has also helped
her get through some difficult times.
   White House Chief of Staff Leon Panetta, when asked on
television (Sunday) about the sessions, would only say he has not
read the book, only excerpts printed in the Washington Post:
   "All I can tell you is that the first lady is a human being.
She reaches out, talks to friends, talks to others, gathers
information, tries to look at other people's experiences. In the
jobs that she's involved with, along with the president and all
of us, we have to draw strength from wherever we can."
   Mr. Panetta says it would be wrong to suggest the first lady
is consulting with psychics.
   Vice President Al Gore and his wife, Tipper, also appearing on
television Sunday) denounced the book's account of the meetings
as, in their words, a cheap shot. Mrs. Gore says Mrs. Clinton's
privacy should be respected.
   Vice President Gore calls the sessions with Mrs. Houston as
nothing more than a brainstorming time to help her write her
book:
   "They have attacked her practice of law 15 years ago. Now,
they're going into how she brainstorms to write her book."
   White House spokesman Mike McCurry says the book's passages
about Mrs. Clinton describe what he calls a graceful first lady
who enjoys listening to women with ideas and perspective that
differ from her own. He calls the book a combination of the
accurate and the not-so-accurate.
   ---------------

   ---------------
   SUPREME COURT: CLINTON SEXUAL HARASSMENT CASE

   JANE BERGER
   WASHINGTON

   The Supreme Court has agreed to hear arguments in a sexual
harassment lawsuit filed against President Clinton by former
Arkansas state employee Paula Jones. The court's decision will
delay further action in the case until after the November
presidential election.
   The Supreme Court has agreed to review a request from
President Clinton to delay the lawsuit until after he leaves
office. White House spokesman Mike McCurry said the president is
pleased by the court's decision to review important
constitutional issues.
   The case began in 1994, when Ms. Jones filed a sexual
harassment lawsuit against President Clinton. Ms. Jones claims in
1991, while Mr. Clinton was serving as governor of Arkansas, he
made unwanted sexual advances toward her in a Little Rock hotel
room. She is seeking 700,000 dollars in damages.
   President Clinton has repeatedly denied the allegations,
saying he cannot remember meeting Ms. Jones.
   President Clinton argues the case should be delayed until
after he leaves office because it could otherwise impair his
ability to carry out his presidential duties and illegally
subject the judicial branch of government to involvement in
partisan politics.
   The Supreme Court has ruled, in the past, presidents are
immune from civil lawsuits that arise from their official acts.
The justices have never addressed the question of a lawsuit that
arose from events that occurred before a president took office.
   A federal district court ruled Ms. Jones' lawsuit should be
delayed. But the judge said she could begin interviewing
witnesses, including the president, to preserve their testimony
for a later date. A federal appeals court overturned the
decision, saying there is no reason to delay the trial until Mr.
Clinton leaves the White House.
   In a two to one decision, the appeals court said the
constitution did not create a monarchy when it established the
office of the president of the United States.
   The Supreme Court justices will hear arguments in the case
during the new court term that begins in October. A decision is
not considered likely until sometime in 1997.
   ---------------

   ---------------
   U.S. OPINION ROUNDUP: COURT ON CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICTS

   JENNIFER L. BRANT
   WASHINGTON

   On June 13, the United States Supreme Court ruled as
unconstitutional four congressional districts in North Carolina
and Texas that were created as a result of racial gerrymandering.
   Gerrymandering means the drawing of districts which
politically favor a certain social or economic group. It is
accomplished by placing district boundaries around areas where
such groups are in the majority. The districts cited by the
court, the justices ruled, were created to increases the chances
for an African-American candidate to win.
   Since the early 90s, several states have redistricted in order
to help minority representatives get elected and have a stronger
voice in the government.
   However, with its most recent decision, the court is
signalling its displeasure with this practice. The major media's
reaction has been varied, though minority activists have been
vocal in condemning the ruling.
   Some of the praise for last week's decision came from those
who believe that the racial restructuring of districts is not the
best way to bring about fair representation for minorities.
Writing for the Philadelphia Inquirer, Richard Cohen notes his
approval of the ruling. He says that racial gerrymandering
promotes political segregation without solving anything:
   "[The] U.S. should drop racial gerrymandering, and instead,
pay attention to [the] black community...A real price has been
paid. Race was allowed to become the dominant element is creating
a congressional district. An aspect of a person that is immutable
has for well-intentioned reasons, become controlling. The court
said it ought not to be. The court is right...racially
gerrymandered congressional districts hardly move us all in the
right direction. They create congressional ghettos one district
for blacks, the rest for whites, and very few for congressmen who
would have to appeal to both."
   The Christian Science Monitor emphasizes the importance of
continuing to guarantee equal representation, and expresses
concern about possible future effects of the ruling:
   "Increased representation for racial minorities has been a
hopeful feature of American political life. Recent Supreme Court
rulings, however, raise doubts about the future of that
trend...Greater political participation by ...[Minority] groups
is vital to American democracy. It must be advanced...This is not
solely a matter of electing representatives whose skin color is
black or brown. The main thing is that all citizens' concerns be
listened to and addressed, not pushed to a powerless periphery."
   Several major newspapers point out the atmosphere of confusion
that has resulted the court's efforts to limit racially-based
congressional districts. Some journalists say the confusion
started as far back as 1965, with the Voting Rights Act, a law
designed to give black voters greater political expression. The
Washington Post criticizes the Supreme Court's lack of direction
on this issue:
   "In 1965, Congress sought to correct decades of terrible
injustice by enacting legislation that would give minorities some
help in electing their representatives to office. That was a
worthy objective, although in practice it has turned out to be
far more difficult constitutionally precisely because race...Is
the operative factor. By the most narrow of margins, the court
has refused to give this objective the benefit of the doubt. It
has also failed to provide state legislatures with clear
guidance. The result is long-range uncertainty and, in the states
concerned, immediate political chaos...[The Voting Rights Act's]
effectiveness has been so damaged that its viability from this
point on is uncertain."
   Expressing the same view on what it calls the court's lack of
clarity, the Baltimore Sun says the following:
   "By invalidating four majority-minority congressional
districts drawn to help increase the representation in congress
of blacks and Hispanics, the Supreme Court has thrown the fall
elections in two states of confusion without substantially
clarifying what kinds of minority districts it will approve...in
the meantime, voters in these four districts are left to wonder
what the courts will come up with before November,  and whether
other congressional districts in those states will be affected."
   The harshest opposition has come from black leaders, who view
the decision as a setback for their political fortunes. In an
article in the Boston Globe, writer Derrick Jackson blasts the
court for a decision that he says crushes black political power.
He writes:
   "This was a malicious misuse of history that will further
divide the nation... [It] is sure to set back the progress made
in the 1990s when redistricting helped the percentage of
African-Americans in the house to go up... Last week's
decision...murders the political voice of people who remain
disproportionately disenfranchised. The bleaching of colors will
not create a color-blind America."
   This month, the Supreme Court is due to act on a similar
appeal with regards to a congressional district in Louisiana. The
judges have the choice of either affirming their recent ruling,
or accepting the appeal, which would indicate that they will
examine future cases on congressional districts on an individual
basis.
   ---------------

   ---------------
   PRESIDENTIAL RACE MOVES TO "CHARACTER WARS" PHASE
   By Stuart Gorin

   The next phase of the battle for the U.S. presidency seems to
be "Character Wars," with Republicans focusing this week on an
"erroneous" collection of Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI)
files and Democrats denouncing "falsehood and deception."
   Bob Dole, the presumed Republican presidential nominee, said
the White House's mysterious possession of around 400 FBI files
on prominent Republicans, which he termed "Filegate," could grow
into a scandal as large as that of Watergate in the 1970s, which
brought down President Nixon.
   President Clinton has apologized for the incident, terming it
"just an innocent bureaucratic snafu," and saying there was "no
political mischief intended." He pledged to correct what he
termed "a flawed system" that allowed someone at the FBI to
respond to an improper request for information.
   Meanwhile, on the other side of the political aisle, Vice
President Gore, referring to the tobacco industry, charged that
Dole is "so addicted to special interests that he's running a
campaign based on a reckless disregard for the truth."
   In a speech meant to counter the Republican character
strategy, Gore said the Dole campaign was deceptive in stating
that in 1992, he (the vice president) said there was "no proven
link between smoking and lung cancer." The Dole campaign failed
to mention, Gore pointed out, that at the time he had attributed
the assertion to scientists working for tobacco companies.
   Dole, who does receive campaign funds from tobacco interests
-- as did Gore when he was a senator in Tennessee -- retorted
that the vice president's remarks were a "diversionary tactic" to
take media interest away from not only the FBI files but also a
scathing report on the White House handling of Whitewater matters
and the start of a second trial of Clinton supporters in
Arkansas.
   Concerning the FBI files, the White House announced that as
the investigation continues, the aide directly responsible for
obtaining them, personnel security office director Craig
Livingstone, would be granted a request for paid administrative
leave.
   It was one of Livingstone's men, former Army investigator Tony
Marceca, who actually requested the files. But the Washington
Post said it "still isn't clear...who gave him his marching
orders or what he made of them."
   Noting that both Livingstone and Marceca have backgrounds in
Democratic political campaigns, Dole said "it doesn't speak well
for the White House as the paragon of virtue and ethics."
   A bitterly divided Senate Whitewater Committee ended its work,
meanwhile, with Democrats concluding that the First Family
engaged in no wrongdoing, and Republicans concluding that First
Lady Hillary Rodham Clinton had a "powerful motive" to hide the
law firm billing records that outlined her work a decade ago for
the failed Arkansas savings and loan association that is at the
center of the Whitewater investigation.
   Noting that the president's partisan defenders, especially in
the Senate, are embarked on a high-stakes gamble, the Washington
Times points out that they will be remembered as "profiles in
courage" if the president is innocent, but if anyone associated
with the administration goes down in disgrace, the "congressional
defenders risk falling, too."
   The Republicans issued a report saying Mrs. Clinton may
have20wanted to conceal that she had knowledge of a fraudulent
land development scheme that potentially violated bank
regulations.
   At the White House, spokesman Mike McCurry dismissed the
Republican conclusions as "nothing new" in election-year
politics.
   And on June 12, the Democratic National Committee (DNC) filed
a complaint with the Federal Election Commission (FEC) accusing
the Dole campaign of willfully violating federal spending limits
and illegally shifting expenses to other organizations, such as
the Republican National Committee.
   The maximum allowed through the nominating conventions is $37
million, and the DNC noted that Dole himself stated his campaign
was "broke" in April, yet it continues to rack up expenses, which
the Democrats estimated at more than three-quarters of a million
dollars just for the month of May.
   "If the Dole campaign keeps up its extensive travel and other
operations," the DNC charges, at least another half million
dollars will be needed each additional month until the August
convention.
   The Democrats asked the FEC to impose civil penalties on the
Republican campaign and suspend any further matching fund
payments.
   As expected, Dole denied all of the charges, saying the
Democrats "must have the wrong numbers. They usually do." Dole's
aides said that as of June 1, the campaign had $1.1 million left
to spend, and they counter-accused the Democrats of failing to
account for several sources of income and of overestimating
expenses.
   As all of these accusations and counter-accusations played out
in the media, there were also mixed messages from public opinion
polls on whether the presidential race was tightening. Dole had
been trailing Clinton by 15-20 percentage points in most surveys,
but a new series showed he had cut that lead, in one case -- by
CNN/Time Magazine -- to as few as 6 points.
   A survey by the Politics Now news service on the Internet had
Clinton with a 12 point lead (down from 20 points) in California,
whose 54 Electoral College votes are seen as a must-win state for
the president's re-election hopes. He has visited the state two
dozen times since taking office in January 1993.
   Dole, too, campaigned in California this past week -- the
third time since wrapping up the Republican nomination. His
strategists said he would make a stand in the nation's largest
state, and not cede it to the Democrats.
   He accused the president of ignoring California's defense and
aerospace industries, but learned the same day that the
administration announced the selection of two major firms to bid
on a new $3,000 million missile contract.
   And so "Character Wars" continues.
   ---------------

   ---------------
   SUPREME COURT RULING COULD MEAN FEWER BLACKS IN CONGRESS
   By David Pitts

   The recent U.S. Supreme Court decision striking down majority
black and Hispanic congressional districts in Texas and North
Carolina could have profound implications not only for African
American representation in Congress, but also for the relative
strength of the Democratic and Republican parties, especially in
the South, experts say.
   In separate 5-4 votes June 13, the nation's highest court
declared four congressional districts in Texas, and one in North
Carolina, to be unconstitutional because "too much emphasis" was
placed on race when the boundaries were drawn.
   Supporters of the decision hailed it as an important step
toward a colorblind society. But the civil rights community
strongly criticized it, indicating the practical effect would be
to reduce the number of African Americans in Congress.
   "With so much still to be done to address society's racial
strains, this is a result the nation can ill afford," says the
New York Times.
   But the Wall Street Journal says that while the court hasn't
made it easier to enhance cooperation between the races, by
limiting the practice of racial gerrymandering it has removed
from the table "a destructive practice that would ultimately have
exacerbated racial tensions."
   The Washington Post says the decision appears to favor two
conflicting principles that the legislatures are having
difficulty reconciling -- strong support for sustaining the 1965
Voting Rights Act which protects the interests of minorities, and
adhering to the constitutional principle that racial distinctions
are inherently suspect.
   President Clinton indicated disappointment with the decision
saying, "I think the affected voters will see that they need to
work even harder to make sure their voices are heard."
   The court majority said the districts that were ruled
unconstitutional lacked compactness and were unusually configured
to ensure that a particular race was in the majority. The law
must acknowledge that "voters are more than mere racial
statistics," said Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, a Reagan
appointee.
   O'Connor, a key swing vote in cases before the court involving
race, also said that in making race the predominant factor in
drawing the boundaries, Texas and North Carolina violated the
equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment to the U.S.
Constitution. Voters are not "just racial statistics," she said.
   According to court observers, however, O'Connor did not rule
out race as one factor in the drawing of congressional district
boundaries so long as it was not the predominant factor. The
implications, therefore, for other congressional districts that
were drawn with the focus on race were not completely clear.
   David Bositis, senior political analyst for the Joint Center
for Political and Economic Studies, the nation's leading black
think tank, predicts changes in the racial composition of
Congress as a result of the ruling, but they will be
"incremental, with a small decline in the number of black
Americans."
   Other observers, however, predicted a quick return to a
largely white Congress. Nina Totenberg, National Public Radio
legal correspondent, said the ruling "all but kills" the 1982
amendments to the Voting Rights Act. She predicted a "marked
decline" in African American representation in Congress.
   Daniel Troy, who represented the Texas voters challenging the
districts there, said, "I do not believe that all of the
majority-minority districts would be unconstitutional, but I
believe that many of them are under these rulings."
   Speaking for the court minority, Justice John Paul Stevens
said, "The court's aggressive supervision of state action
designed to accommodate the political concerns of historically
disadvantaged groups is seriously misguided." Stevens and the
three other justices in dissent argued it was important for
states to make some redress for discrimination aimed against a
particular group of voters.
   It remains unclear whether new districts in Texas and North
Carolina will have to be drawn up before the November elections
as a result of the ruling. Lower federal court panels in the two
states will make that decision since the Supreme Court made no
stipulation.
   The situation could become cumbersome. In North Carolina, for
example, where voters already have voted in one primary election,
and a runoff election, many voters could be involved in a third
election and not just in the 12th congressional district that was
ruled unconstitutional. Experts say redrawing the 12th would
inevitably mean changes to other congressional districts, thus
affecting political outcomes in a large area, if not all, of the
state.
   The ruling June 13 follows a Supreme Court decision last year
that found a majority black district in Georgia to be
unconstitutional. The court majority indicated the same logic in
the previous case -- that race was the predominant factor in
drawing boundaries that were unusually configured to assure a
black majority. The court majority reaffirmed the "strict
scrutiny" standard, meaning districts drawn in such a way must
meet a compelling government interest.
   Georgia, as well as Texas and North Carolina, created the
congressional districts at issue to conform with the provisions
of the Voting Rights Act.
   The purpose of that law, according to Taylor Branch, the
author of "Parting the Waters," a best-selling history of the
Civil Rights Movement, was "to protect all minorities against
discrimination at the voting booth." But it was primarily passed
"to protect African Americans who had suffered most from
discrimination," he adds.
   Constitutionally, minority voters won specific protection
against discrimination in the voting booth as long ago as 1870
when the 15th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution barring
discrimination against voters of any race or color was adopted.
The amendment reads, in part: "The right of citizens of the
United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the
United States or by any state on account of race, color, or
previous condition of servitude."
   But despite the protection afforded by the Constitution, most
blacks in the South effectively were barred from voting for
almost another century until the 1965 law was enacted, Branch
says. The Voting Rights Act did what the 15th Amendment "did not
do. It provided enforcement."
   The 1965 Voting Rights Act was extended and expanded in 1970,
1975 and 1982. The 1982 amendments, in particular, authorized
federal intervention to assure that legislative districts are
drawn in such a way as to give minorities a fair chance to win
office. This led to the creation of the additional majority race
congressional districts and to the later court challenges,
according to observers.
   The 1982 amendments were sponsored by Senator Robert Dole and
supported by liberal Democrats and moderate Republicans who
believed that white voters in the South were still not willing to
elect an African American running in a majority white district.
In order to give African Americans a fair chance of winning at
least some political power, there must be at least some majority
black districts, it was argued.
   The overall effects of the Voting Rights Act have been
dramatic. When the act was passed in 1965, there were just six
black members of Congress. By 1995, there were 39 blacks in the
House of Representatives and one black Senator. The number of
local, elected black officeholders in the South soared from less
than 100 in 1965 to 3,265 in 1989. It is those gains that civil
rights leaders fear will be reversed by the Supreme Court
decision.
   Political observers point out that the Supreme Court decision
also could have an even broader significance. The creation of
majority black districts inadvertently contributed to the
strength of the Republican Party in the South, they say, because
black, mostly Democratic voters, were siphoned away from
congressional districts whose resulting, greater white majorities
were more likely to vote Republican.
   The majority black districts were supported not only by
Southern Republicans, but also by the Republican National
Committee, according to sources. Some Republicans said they fear
another potential result of the Supreme Court decision: fewer
Republicans might be elected in the South.
   ---------------

   ---------------
   REPUBLICAN PRIMARY VOTE, WHILE LOW, STILL SETS A RECORD

   Following the final presidential primaries in early June,
Congressional Quarterly reported that 13.8 million votes were
cast in all of the Republican races, and 8.5 million in the
Democratic. It was the first time in more than a half century
that more votes were cast in Republican than Democratic
primaries.
   The head of the Republican task force on national caucuses and
primaries, Jim Nicholson, says there were "record high turnouts
in the early states" during the 1996 presidential primary season,
but that after Bob Dole wrapped up the nomination the voter
turnout was "record low."
   The Center for the American Electorate is working to update
its March report on voter turnout for the first 22 primaries, but
says there is not going to be much of a change.
   In March, the election monitoring group said only 7.4 percent
of those old enough to cast votes actually did so in Republican
presidential primaries, but that even that low figure was an
improvement over the 1988 and 1992 campaigns. The "likely" reason
for the increase, according to the center, was Pat Buchanan's
appeal to working-class voters.
   Voter turnout ranged in the early report from a low of 2.5
percent in Louisiana to a high of 23.9 percent in New Hampshire.
   Curtis Gans, director of the center, said "primaries have,
compared to general elections, an historic pattern of
comparatively low turnout because they are principally for the
active and interested of each party."
   ---------------

   ---------------
   CAMPAIGN '96: THE WELFARE DEBATE

   DEBORAH BLOCK
   WASHINGTON

   In the United States, millions of people are locked in poverty
with little hope for a life of real prosperity. Many are helped
through welfare programs, government social services that provide
food, housing and financial assistance to the poor. Despite the
variety of benefits provided by welfare, critics say the system
needs to be overhauled, that it has become more costly than the
country can afford. They say too many people are relying on
public assistance instead of trying to find work. The issue is
already generating considerable debate in the '96 presidential
and congressional election campaigns.
   Republican Congressman Phil English is among a growing number
of legislators who think the current U.S. welfare program is not
helping the poor to better their lives:
   "I think there is a fundamental imperative for welfare reform
of the right sort that's going to reduce the welfare rolls, move
people out of the welfare system and into the productive
economy."
   Despite a broad agreement in Congress, and between the two top
contenders in this year's presidential race, President Clinton
and Republican Bob Dole, a welfare reform bill has not been
passed due to political and ideological differences.
   The debate over public assistance programs has escalated in
recent years as many Americans become increasingly troubled over
the large number of people on the welfare rolls. According to a
survey released recently by "Public Agenda," a non-partisan
research organization in New York, most Americans feel the
current welfare system is out of control. Their main concern is
not about its costs. They fear welfare is undercutting the
cornerstone of the American work ethic. In other words: One
should give an honest day's work for the money they receive. The
public agenda study also shows, however, that few Americans think
welfare should be eliminated, but most want it reformed.
   The majority of people on welfare are single mothers, many of
them teenagers with children, who receive money through a
government program called "aid to families with dependent
children." About equal numbers of whites and blacks are in the
program and a sizeable group of Hispanics. Many of them also
receive government food and housing subsidies.
   Scholar Douglas Besharov is with the American enterprise
institute, a private, Washington-based group that examines public
policy issues. He says while Americans are concerned about the
amount of money spent on welfare programs, they also see the
issue as part of a larger social problem:
   "They look at the world around them and they see high levels
of crime, especially in the inner city, high levels of non-work,
drug use, social dilapidation, and people on welfare. And they
think these things are all connected. I think when people worry
about welfare, what they're worried about is the deterioration of
both living conditions and the behavior of the most disadvantaged
portions of American society. The American people think that
welfare is a serious contributor to the problems that our country
faces, and by a large majority they want welfare to be turned
into a program of mandatory work and mutual obligation between
the recipient and the government."
   Ron Haskins, a Republican, is the staff director on the House
of Representatives Ways and Means Committee, a congressional
group that is working to change welfare legislation. He says the
welfare system is not working, and is actually rewarding
unmarried teenage mothers:
   "So in the case at hand what we're doing is insuring that
young children who have babies outside marriage are guaranteed
under federal law to receive cash, health insurance, and food
stamps. In addition to that guaranteed package there are a host
of other benefits that are available, such as other health
benefits, food benefits, housing benefits in many cases.
Sometimes in some states up to half the children who have babies
outside marriage wind up with their own apartment. So this is
clearly a system that is designed to encourage birth outside
marriage."
   Mr. Haskins does not think the welfare system should be
eliminated. But he says he agrees with Republicans on the House
Ways and Means Committee on what steps should be taken to reform
welfare:
   "We think that minor mothers who have children outside
marriage should not receive cash support. They should continue to
receive medical care and food stamps and other benefits but cash
we feel is a particularly attractive thing for young women who
are making a decision of this sort. And in fact, what our view is
that, over the years, a system has built up where it has become
an expectation that all you have to do is have a baby outside
marriage and you get all these benefits. So we think that if we
can stop the cash, that will begin to erode the attractiveness of
the alternatives."
   Mr. Haskins adds, however, that the men who made these young,
unmarried women pregnant should be required to help support the
children they helped conceive.
   Kay Bengston is with the Lutheren Church's office of
government affairs in Washington. She says while the church
agrees welfare needs to be reformed, it is also concerned many of
those on welfare will be hurt if drastic changes are made. She
says it is unrealistic to expect welfare recipients to work
unless they are given adequate pay, along with support services:
   "Right now the economy does not provide for sustainable wages.
At minimum wage, a mother with two children would still be 30
percent below the poverty line if she was working full-time. You
can't sustain a family on that kind of income, so there needs to
be a way of generating more adequate income, creating jobs that
provide greater income and then providing transportation and
child care and opportunities to upgrade educational levels in
order to enable people of employability to increase."
   Although a U.S. law passed in 1988 established programs to
provide training and job opportunities for welfare recipients,
Congressman Phil English says too many of them are not working.
He also believes drug and alcohol abusers should not be allowed
to receive welfare payments, and instead, should be required to
go into treatment programs to qualify for government assistance.
And after a limited period of time, in the congressman's view,
welfare benefits should be cut off, except for handicapped
people:
   "I think we need to move away from a permissive welfare system
toward a system where we ask for things in exchange for benefits.
We link welfare rights to community responsibilities. In return
for benefits we should require that people do some work where
they are able. We should stop rewarding behavior like alcoholism
or drug addiction with cash benefits and we move toward a system
which more resembles the sorts of conditions people need to
experience in order to get out of the welfare system and to enter
a low-paying, low-skilled job which is their ticket into the
productive economy."
   Welfare reform bills now under consideration propose that
welfare recipients be cut off from cash benefits after five
years. President Clinton, who once opposed the idea, now embraces
it. But the Lutheren Church's Kay Bengston says such a move would
prove detrimental for welfare recipients, especially young
children:
   "I think it's unrealistic and I think it could be disastrous
to children. It seems to me that at the very least, when a family
brushes up against this five-year time limit unless they would at
least provide vouchers for food, clothing and diapers and other
ways of meeting the physical needs of these families and
children, I think they will end up in destitution and on the
streets."
   One U.S. child advocacy organization, the Casey Foundation,
has voiced similar concerns. It reports that while there has been
considerable debate about moving people off welfare, little has
been said about what will happen to them once they no longer have
that assistance.
   Scholar Douglas Besharov says cutting off all welfare
recipients after a certain number of years is not a good idea:
   "There's some welfare recipients who can't work so the
absoluteness of the rule will not work. There are some mothers
who don't have the capacity to work. But that is usually a social
incapacity or an emotional one and those mothers aren't the
greatest mothers either. And we just have to have a more honest
appraisal of the weaknesses of not only the system but many of
the people in it."
   Not everyone agrees that welfare reform is necessarily the
answer. Robert Borosage (bore-oh-sahge) is the director of the
campaign for new priorities, a group that wants the government to
reevaluate its program objectives. He says most welfare
recipients are not being given the tools they need so they can go
to work:
   "The vast majority of recipients are young, single mothers
with children, without skills to get into this job market. So the
question is less their willingness to work, than is there work
out there, and will they be provided with services they need to
raise their children, like health care insurance, and a minimum
wage that will keep them above the poverty level. And the real
question everyone is avoiding is that, in reality, it costs more
to train people to work and provide them with health care or
minimal level jobs so their work will pay enough to allow them to
work and keep their children out of poverty."
   To try to keep more families out of poverty, there has been
debate in the U.S. government over whether states should have
more flexibility to decide what kind of welfare programs would
best suit their needs. Earlier this year, a conference of state
governors said the states should have more autonomy. The U.S.
Congress and Clinton Administration agree.
   Last year, both houses of Congress passed welfare reform
bills, but President Clinton vetoed them. He called the house
version too harsh, and said the Senate plan could lead to the
impoverishment of huge numbers of children. He also vetoed a
compromise bill, and said later during his weekly radio address
that if Congress sent him a welfare reform bill that is tough on
work, instead of tough on children, he would gladly sign it:
   "In 1994, and again this year, I sent Congress a sweeping
welfare reform plan that would impose strict time limits on how
long people can stay on welfare, and strict work requirements for
people when they are on welfare. My plan would also provide more
funding for child care so single parents can go to work, and it
would crack down on parents who skip their responsibility to pay
child support."
   While Congress and President Clinton haggle over welfare
proposals, 38 of the 50 states have already established their own
new welfare reforms which include time-limit benefits, work
requirements, and programs to discourage teenage pregnancy. The
president has indicated he approves these initiatives and
recently endorsed legislation in Wisconsin that will abolish
welfare payments there by the end of 1997. The payments will be
replaced with a system of work programs, child care, and
subsidies to private employers who hire the poor.
   Congressman Phil English thinks states can better administer
welfare programs because each one has different problems. But a
former Clinton Administration official, Isabel sawhill,
disagrees. She does research at the Urban Institute, a non-profit
policy research organization in Washington. Ms. Sawhill says
there is no guarantee states can do a better job than the federal
government:
   "I think we have to ask hard questions about whether simply
moving responsibility to the state government is suddenly going
to lead to major improvements. There's no reason to think that
the state bureaucrats are any more talented than federal
bureaucrats. So I think we have to be a little bit skeptical that
it is all going to work out just fine. One thing we know for sure
is that less money is going to be devoted to this system, so
unless there were major efficiencies in the way states spent the
money, the prospects are that there are going to be fewer people
eligible for benefits, or the benefits themselves are going to be
lower than they are now."
   Child welfare advocate David Leiderman (lee-der-mahn), who
heads the Child Welfare League of America, is also skeptical. At
a conference on children and families in American cities, he
expressed concern about the two-million children who are abused
and neglected by their parents and who in many cases are
dependent on the welfare program. Mr. Liederman says if states
are given more flexibility to implement welfare programs, much of
the responsibility would trickle down to cities, which he says
are ill-prepared to handle welfare programs:
   "It is totally unrealistic to expect that even the best
intentioned cities, mayors, and executives in local communities
can suitably protect children, especially those who are abused
and neglected, and other vulnerable children and families in
their communities without great help from the state and federal
government."
   If Congress and the president fail to agree on new welfare
legislation by the end of this legislative year, the debate is
expected to continue throughout the '96 campaign. Kay Bengston of
the Luitheren Church thinks it will be a major issue:
   "After all, President Clinton campaigned in the last election
on a platform of ending welfare as we know it. And he will be
criticized by the Republicans if he has not signed a welfare
reform bill before the election. The Republicans will try to
argue that they proposed something and that the president vetoed
it. And I think President Clinton will argue that he vetoed it
because it wasn't real reform. It didn't protect children and
didn't do much to encourage work or provide people with child
care and training that they need to find work."
   Isabel Sawhill of the Urban Institute also thinks welfare will
have a lot of influence in the campaign. She says that is partly
because President Clinton rejected welfare reform proposals at
this year's state governors conference:
   "Since he has vetoed the (governors') conference report, the
Republicans will certainly make it a big issue. Unfortunately, I
think this whole idea about reforming the welfare system has
become so politicized, and it has not addressed what will really
work and help to sustain these families and move them into
greater independence."
   Ron Haskins, staff director of the House Ways and Means
Committee, says welfare reform will play a key role, especially
in the congressional election campaigns:
   "If either of the candidates decides to make it an issue,
polls have shown over and over again that welfare is constantly
something on the minds of the American public. So if either
candidate running for an office wants to make welfare an issue it
can be an issue. Given the high visibility that President Clinton
brought to the issue in the 1992 election, and the visibility the
Republicans brought to the issue in 1994, and the fact that both
sides promised to reform welfare and it has not yet been
reformed, I would say that in most congressional races and in the
presidential race that it will be quite an important issue."
   Republican Congressman Phil English, who is running for
re-election this year, expects that welfare will be an important
part of his campaign. He says the Republicans will probably
continue their criticism of the president for vetoing
congressional welfare proposals. That, he says, will put the
president is a difficult situation:
   "The President, having been in the position of having opposed
specific welfare positions, having not offered his own specific
blueprint in this session of Congress, is trying to make up for
it in a lot of ads (advertisements) talking about welfare reform.
But I don't think most people are going to buy it."
   Douglas Besharov of the American Enterprise Institute says if
the 1992 election is any gauge, then welfare issues will probably
be crucial in the '96 campaign:
   "Welfare reform issues were very important in the 1992
election. They helped define Bill Clinton as a new democrat, a
kind of conservative, social democrat. If Clinton's going to
maintain his strategy of trying to straddle the left and the
right (make both sides happy) one would predict that he will try
to make it an issue on his side. On the other hand, his
performance has not been that terrific. It's going to be hard for
him to do it. Reublicans, on the other side, may want to make it
an issue or may not. So welfare reform was often an important and
decisive issue in 1992, and could well be again."
   Robert Borosage (bore-oh-sahge) of the campaign for new
priorities, thinks welfare reform will be part of a bigger
picture:
   "I think it's more one of a series of issues that will be part
of the struggle about an economy that is not working very well
for working people in the United States. President Clinton made
it a sort of insignia of how he was a different kind of Democrat
in 1992, promising to move from welfare to work, and I think
Republicans will try to embarrass him with that unfulfilled
promise in 1996."
   Last month, Republican leaders of Congress introduced new
welfare legislation to meet some of President Clinton's earlier
objections. But both Republicans and Democrats say they expect
another veto, in part, because the bill includes provisions
giving states more latitude in running Medicaid, a federal and
state program that provides medical care for millions of
Americans.
   Meanwhile, Democrats are accusing the Republicans of
deliberately trying to force the president to veto another
welfare bill. But Republicans say Mr. Clinton is just looking for
an excuse to avoid signing welfare reform. The bottom line,
members of both parties agree, is that welfare reform legislation
will probably not be enacted this year, but will remain a hot
political topic.
   ---------------

   ---------------
   WHITEWATER COMMITTEE REPORT ACCUSES FIRST LADY OF OBSTRUCTION

   VICTOR BEATTIE
   WASHINGTON

   A report by majority Republicans on a special Senate committee
investigating the Whitewater affair concludes first lady Hillary
Rodham Clinton kept sensitive documents from federal
investigators following the 1993 suicide of deputy White House
counsel Vincent Foster. But committee Democrats are issuing a
minority report challenging the reports conclusions as being
politically motivated.
   The excerpts, made public in "The Washington Post" and "The
New York Times" Sunday, say Mrs. Clinton was "closely involved"
in handling the documents related to Whitewater and the firing of
White House travel office staff. Both have been the objects of
congressional hearings.
   The report following 14-months of hearings indicates two
senior White House aides and a close friend of Mrs. Clinton gave
the senate panel inaccurate testimony on the first lady's role.
Perjury investigations by the independent Whitewater counsel
Kenneth Starr will reportedly be recommended.
   White House spokesman Mark Fabiani dismisses the report, which
is to be made public Tuesday, as highly partisan in this election
year:
   "What we really have here is a report that amounts to nothing
more than a one-point-eight million dollar taxpayer press release
for the (Bob) Dole presidential campaign."
   The Democratic minority on the Whitewater panel, which will
issue a separate report, says there is no credible evidence of
any improper or illegal conduct by Mrs. Clinton.
   ---------------

   ---------------
   U.S. CAMPAIGN FINANCING: PROBLEMS WITH THE LAW

   MARILYN SILVEY
   WASHINGTON

   One year ago, President Clinton and House speaker Newt
Gingrich shook hands and agreed to work for campaign finance
reform. The news received national attention. Now, advocacy
groups and some members of Congress are calling on the two
leaders to keep their promise, and to cut back the increasingly
expensive cost of congressional campaigns, largely financed by
big business and other interests.
   Running for Congress in the United States is an increasingly
expensive process. The cost of the average senate campaign is now
more than 4 million dollars, and in California, candidates for
the two Senate seats in 1994 spent about 60-million-dollars
combined.
   Over the years, American lawmakers have tried three strategies
concerning political candidates and money: First, limiting how
much money can be given to candidates and spent by them; second,
requiring public disclosure of the sources and uses of money; and
third, giving governmental subsidies to presidential candidates,
campaigns and parties. All three are currently in effect, in some
form.
   But some aspects of the law are not working very well. Many
congressional candidates spend vast amounts of money. Mark Busey
(bue'see), legislative aide to Republican Senator John McCain of
Arizona, says there are two main problems with the present
system:
   "One, politicians spend too much time raising money, and it
causes the public to have more distrust of their elected
officials, and two, the candidate with the most money tends to
win, which means that we don't always have the best candidate
winning the office."
   During nearly the first 200 years of the United States, there
were few campaign financing laws. Then a major law was passed in
1971 that limits amounts that candidates for federal office can
spend on media advertising, and requires disclosure of the
sources of campaign funds and how they are used.
   The Watergate scandal in 1972 led to passage of a lot more
laws. Among other things, the scandal disclosed the existence of
large amounts of money from corporations and individuals, held in
secret bank accounts outside the United States, and used for
campaign purposes. Public concern led to passage of the federal
election campaign act of 1974, the most sweeping law on campaign
financing in U.S. history.
   This law does several things in an attempt to reduce the
potential influence of large contributors, including establish
limits on the amounts individuals or corporations can give
congressional candidates. An individual may give 1000-dollars per
candidate in the primary election, and another $1,000 per
candidate in the general election, while organizations may give
$5,000 per candidate, per election.
   The law also sets a limit of $25,000 that any individual can
donate to all candidates for federal office. It does not set any
limit on contributions by organizations.
   But the law has many loopholes, and it's considered easy to
get around the contribution limits. For instance, there are about
4000 political action committees, known as "PACS," representing
various groups that can pool individual gifts and often make
"independent expenditures" not connected to a particular
campaign. And there are no legal limits on what donors can give
in what's called 'soft money', funds given to a state or local
political party that don't need to be disclosed. The funds are
hard to trace, and are often passed to parties or candidates at
the national level.
   Meredith Megehee of Common Cause, a non-partisan citizens'
organization, says a lot of money is involved:
   "We're talking about money here that's in huge amounts,
wealthy individuals giving more than a hundred thousand dollars.
Remember, they're supposed to be limited to two thousand dollars.
Corporations (for example) Amway, giving over two million dollars
to the Republicans. (Labor) unions as well; the Republicans in
(19)95 raised twenty million dollars in soft money, the Democrats
raised ten million. So this is a huge way for the money to flow
around the system and to escape and avoid the limits that are in
the current law."
   The result impacts on legislation, says democratic Senator
John Kerry of Nebraska:
   "Money sets the agenda in Washington. Money is what creates
most of the access routes of Washington."
   Donna Edwards, director of the Center for a New Democracy, a
private group, gives an example:
   "When the United States Congress has attempted to enact
regulations governing water safety or food safety, at various
instances during the history, (such as) the clean water and clean
air acts, lots of corporations who were opposed to these pieces
of legislation contributed literally millions of dollars in
political campaign contributions to various members of Congress
and to the president. The effect of that is there were a lot of
amendments to those various pieces of legislation which, over a
period of time, actually watered down (weakened) the
legislation."
   As far as campaign spending, the federal election campaign act
limits the amount that national parties, but not individual
candidates, may spend on presidential and congressional
campaigns. Spending by individual candidates is not regulated,
because the Supreme Court has ruled that it is a form of free
speech, which is protected by the constitution.
   A result is that members of Congress, who run for re-election
every two years, must spend about one-third of their time raising
money for campaigns, time that could be spent studying issues and
passing laws. The high cost of campaigns favors incumbent
candidates, who have a 95 percent re-election rate, because
contributors generally give more money to those in power. It also
favors rich candidates, who are willing to spend large amounts of
their own money.
   Many Americans believe the United States should adopt a system
of public funding for elections, or at least some campaign
finance reforms. That probably won't happen any time soon. There
are too many politicians, and too many large contributors, who
like things the way they are. But right now, for the first time
in more than a decade, there are bi-partisan bills in Congress to
limit both private contributions and candidate spending. Backers
expect the proposals to be debated in Congress within the next
few weeks. (June or early July)
   ---------------

   ---------------
   U.S. CAMPAIGN FINANCING: PROPOSED REFORMS

   MARILYN SILVEY
   WASHINGTON

   Many Americans are unhappy with the ever increasing amount of
money being spent by individual candidates on their election
campaigns, and with where that money comes from. There have been
frequent attempts at campaign finance reform but most have been
sponsored by one political party, and defeated by the other. Now,
for the first time in more than a decade, reform bills
co-sponsored by both Democrats and Republicans are being debated
in congressional committee hearings.
   At a well-timed Washington, DC, press conference, a
bi-partisan group of reform-minded members of Congress met
outside the capitol (this week) to speak in favor of cutbacks in
campaign spending, on the day after an event in the city that
raised millions of dollars for Congressional Republicans, and
while President Clinton was traveling in the American west to
raise money for Democratic candidates.
   One of those on the capital lawn, Connecticut Congressman
Christopher Shays, a Republican, said the campaign financing
reform bills now in congressional committees would set some
realistic restraints on campaign giving and spending and are
urgently needed:
   "We need to end the obscene practice of the people who want
legislation being asked by the member of congress for money."
   Democratic Senator Russell Feingold, of Wisconsin, agreed:
   "Money is the mother's milk of American politics. I'm sick and
tired of hearing that."
   Mark Busey (bue-see), legislative aide to Arizona Republican
Senator John McCain, a co-sponsor of the current senate bill,
says the proposed laws would offer incentives to congressional
candidates who voluntarily agree to limit their campaign
spending:
   "We can't do mandatory (limits), the constitution doesn't
allow that, it's a freedom of speech issue. But voluntary
spending limits, combined with restrictions on how you raise the
money."
   The bills propose campaign spending limits of $600,000 for a
candidate for the House of Representatives, equivalent to about
one dollar per voter, per election, and a range of limits for a
Senate candidate, from $950,000 dollars to five-point-five
million dollars, based on the population of the state where the
candidate is running. Candidates who comply would qualify for
some free television advertising time, and reduced postage costs
of mailings to registered voters.
   Meredith Megehee of Common Cause, a non-partisan, citizens
lobby group backing the bills, believes voluntary limits could
work:
   "You have to remember that television now accounts for up to
40 to 50 percent of what senate candidates spend of their
campaign funds, so this is a very valuable resource. What we
believe is, they'll agree to abide by the spending limits so they
can get this benefit. Otherwise they're not going to get free
time, and they're going to have to pay full price, full dollar
value, for any of the television time they do get, or they decide
to buy. In addition, both the House and Senate bills have
(provisions for) reduced-rate postage for candidates who agree to
the spending limits, and that would allow them to mail at a
cheaper rate to constituents and therefore communicate with
voters."
   The proposed bills would also ban or curtail individual and
corporate contributions to national political parties, which
often funnel the money to individual candidates. The goal is to
end contributions of 'soft money,' that is, hard-to-track funds,
exceeding the legal limits, that are given by corporations,
unions, and wealthy individuals.
   The bills would also limit the contributions by special
interest political action committees, known as "PACS". Candidates
would be expected to replace that money with many smaller
campaign contributions from local constituents in the districts
they are elected to represent.
   Reformers, like Republican Congresswoman Linda Smith of
Washington state, say most legislators don't want to change
things because they benefit from the present system:
   "Members of Congress get nearly half a million dollars easy
for their next re-election, and that just wipes the challengers
out. So you have incumbency re-election rates here at 90-plus
percent."
   Analyst John Killian of the Congressional Research Service
says opposition to reform is based on other grounds as well, and
cuts across party and philosophical lines:
   "Typically, liberals favor free speech and seek to protect it,
conservatives want to promote governmental regulation above all.
But in the political spending area, which involves speech, you
have liberals who want to curtail speech and liberals like the
American civil liberties union who want to protect it; you have
conservatives who, in part because it's political speech and in
part because it's the economic regulation factor involved in
political spending and speech, who want to protect it. So that
you have philosophical groups on both sides."
   Sponsors of the Senate bill are hopeful it will be sent by the
committee to the whole Senate this month (June). A filibuster is
expected, that is, a group of senators who oppose the bill can
exercise unlimited debate to try to delay or prevent a vote. If a
filibuster happens, it can be stopped if at least 60 senators
vote to end the debate.
   The campaign finance reform bill in the House of
Representatives is expected to be voted out of committee in early
July.
   But supporters say chances of passage of campaign finance
reform legislation this year by both houses of congress are, at
best, fifty-fifty. And they say if the bills don't pass, they
will try again, because public opinion polls report that more
than 80 percent of Americans want reform.
   Senate legislative aide Mark Busey says citizens are very
concerned:
   "There was a USA Today-Gallup poll that came out that asked,
'do you rank this issue in importance?' and cutting taxes
actually ranked below campaign finance reform. Reforming welfare
was above it, and balancing the budget was above it. I do think
the public wants reform. They don't like the appearance of the
money chase. The public is clearly saying, 'you have to do
something.'"
   But few people would place any bets that the 'something' will
be the current bi-partisan campaign reform proposals. A safer bet
is that the issue will be back again next year.
   ---------------

   ---------------
   TALK RADIO AN IMPORTANT FORUM FOR POLITICAL CANDIDATES
   By Judy Aita

   During the 1994 mid-term congressional elections, President
Clinton called talk radio station KMOX in St. Louis from Air
Force One to complain about the unremitting criticism he was
receiving from syndicated talk show host Rush Limbaugh and to
demand equal time.
   That singular recognition of the impact talk radio has on the
American political scene brought new scrutiny to that particular
medium, but confirmed what analysts and political consultants had
already discovered -- the growing influence of talk radio in
elections. And they predict that talk radio will be a dominant
force in the upcoming presidential campaign.
   Ruth Bayard Smith, assistant professor of journalism at
Montclair (New Jersey) State University, describes talk radio as
"the last public forum."
   "All that is required, basically, is a radio and a telephone
and a willingness to talk and to make that kind of connection,"
said Smith, who has been listening to talk radio since she was a
child in Boston and is currently writing a book entitled
"TALKTALKTALK: A history and analysis of talk radio."
   "Radio has a unique quality," she said. "I've heard over and
over again from not just those who listen to the radio but who
work in radio that radio has a certain intimacy and a certain
connection that you just don't get from television.... From the
beginning people felt that the radio announcer was talking to him
or her individually."
   Radios are in more U.S. homes than ever. In 1995 the Radio
Advertising Bureau estimated that more than 98 million homes had
radios and another 212.7 million radios were outside the home in
such places as cars and offices. The talk radio program has
become an important format for a growing number of stations.
According to the Wall Street Journal's John Fund, there were 200
talk radio stations in the U.S. in 1988 compared to 1,000 today.
   One out of six Americans listen to talk radio regularly, Fund
said. A 1993 Times-Mirror poll found that 44 percent of Americans
consider talk radio their primary source for political news.
   "The more one hears a certain opinion espoused, the more it
seems that that is the common belief," said Smith using an
example of a talk show host who engineered the repeal of a
Massachusetts law.
   The man "was determined to repeal the state (automobile) seat
belt law which had been passed saying that every resident in
Massachusetts had to wear a seat belt. He thought that was an
infringement on personal rights and he said that over and over
and over again. People listened to it and other people called
in...and for the most part he put on the air people who agreed
with him (until) people really believed that the law should be
repealed," she said. "And people voted to repeal it."
   "That happens with candidates, it happens with views that
people hold about different officials," Smith said, because
"while the talk shows may be a public forum, they are not
necessarily a democracy that airs all views."
   Anther reason why talk shows affect the political process is
that many of the talk show hosts are former politicians, Smith
pointed out.
   Former New York Mayor Ed Koch has his own show on WABC in New
York. Former New York Governor Mario Cuomo also has his show as
does former Senator Gary Hart of Colorado, who ran for president.
Joe Madison, a former NAACP official who ran for Detroit city
council, now has his own talk show on WRC in Washington, D.C.
Republican political consultant Mary Matlin has her own show as
well.
   Talk radio has also become an "equalizer" for the vast United
States, Smith added.
   "So many of the programs are now syndicated around the
country...so it's not just a call to your local station. National
Public Radio (NPR) does a talk show in the middle of the day
called 'Talk of the Nation' and they get (calls from) people from
all over the country," she said. "So it becomes the equalizer in
society. People from one coast to the other can compare views on
what they think about whatever issue is being talked about."
   Conservative Republican Rush Limbaugh, for example, has become
one of the most influential talk show hosts with an estimated
audience of 20 million listeners on 660 stations across the
United States.
   Talk show hosts are predicting that talk radio will be a prime
platform for political debate in 1996.
   WOR Radio Network talk show host Jay Severin told
"Broadcasting and Cable" magazine that "talk radio could be the
dominant medium of the 1996 campaign."
   "Politics is the grist of the mill of talk radio," said
Severin.
   Charles Brennan of KMOX, at a Museum of Television and Radio
discussion on talk radio and politics, pointed out that some
politicians develop a close relationship with talk radio.
   "People in talk radio love to talk about politics and invite
politicians on the program. Many of our elected leaders love to
blast talk radio, but to get information to the listeners, you
have to use talk radio," Brennan said.
   Smith noted that in 1992 the election process "changed
enormously" when the television talk show became a big factor as
well. She cited the fact that Ross Perot was on "The Larry King
Show" on CNN and Clinton played the saxophone on the "Arsenio
Hall" program. Talk radio, she said, "is part of the same
phenomenon."
   "When (Speaker of the House) Newt Gingrich goes on the
"Tonight" show and (chats) with Jay Leno, it's a way of reaching
out to an untapped audience, the same way that talk radio gives
people a forum," Smith said.
   When politicians appear on talk radio shows, listeners "have a
chance to call a political candidate," she said. "Where is the
average person going to have that kind of access to call up and
ask the governor some questions?"
   In 1992 then presidential candidate Bill Clinton appeared on
the talk show of the popular, and irreverent, Don Imus. The
appearance could have been difficult for Clinton because Imus is
known for being unpredictable, "but a lot of people who might not
have known much about Clinton learned about him because he was on
Imus," Smith said.
   Koch feels that more politicians will follow Clinton's '92
campaign strategy of appearing on many talk radio programs. "It
worked for (Clinton) so I think others will follow," Koch said.
   Another controversial talk show host, Howard Stern, regularly
had on then gubernatorial candidate George Pataki when he was
running against incumbent Mario Cuomo and candidate Christine
Todd Whitman during the New Jersey governor's race.
   "Howard Stern does have a political impact. He did help get
Pataki elected. He did help get Christine Todd Whitman elected.
He does tell his predominantly male, young audiences who he
thinks they should vote for and they respond," Smith said.
   ---------------

   ---------------
   VOLUNTEERS ARE CRITICAL TO ELECTION CAMPAIGNS
   By Mark Harang

   U.S. election campaigns are organized at the local level,
including the presidential race, and they rely on volunteers for
such tasks as soliciting support, addressing envelopes, and
posting campaign signs, says Joan Jensen, executive director of
the Washington-based Women's Democratic Club.
   In a recent interview on the U.S. Information Agency's
Worldnet "Dialogue" program, Jensen, who started out as a
volunteer herself, pointed to a correlation between volunteering
and voting. "The idea," she said, "is if you can get people
involved in the campaign, you can count on them to vote in
November."
   She observed that "Successful campaigns depend on the widening
circle of friends and acquaintances who are either committed to
the candidate running for office or issues the candidate stands
for."
   Essential to this widening circle of influence is the
recruitment of organizations, minorities, youth and in
particular, women. Jensen points to changes in the volunteer
force, noting that although American women are playing an
increasingly valuable role in the political process, their
volunteerism has gone down over time. This is partially due to
women entering the work force.
   While the time that they spend independently to volunteer has
decreased, women are increasingly involved in organizations
through their work. And, Jensen says, they "find activities and
issues that women are concerned with and, thus, find a way to get
involved in the (electoral) process."
   For a developing country, Jensen recommends following the same
ideas to get women to volunteer during election campaigns. "You
need to convince (women) that they can make a difference," she
says, and she stresses the importance of making the volunteer's
experience meaningful.
   "There is a dynamic involved when you bring people together
who meet for the first time and work towards a common goal," she
says. Not only should the work be involved, but the atmosphere
welcoming and positive. Aside from being empowered and motivated
to participate and vote in the elections, there is the intangible
benefit of meeting different people and forging bonds with them
that could last beyond any campaign.
   ---------------

   ---------------

   ---------------
   BOB DOLE'S ROOTS

   ERIN BRUMMETT
   RUSSELL, KANSAS

   The small Midwest community of Russell, Kansas, has a lot at
stake in this year's presidential campaign because it is the
hometown of Bob Dole, the presumed Republican nominee. Residents
there have supported Mr. Dole throughout his political career.
   The road to Bob Dole's roots leads a visitor across an open,
gently rolling prairie, covered by farmland dotted with small
herds of cattle or sheep. There is an occasional windmill or
abandoned barn, dormant, rusty farm machinery, and roadsigns
along the way with directions to old west historical sites or
restaurants. One eating establishment offers a country-style
breakfast for less than one dollar.
   Vast stretches of land give the viewer an almost endless
horizon. The landscape is traversed by a few creeks (small
streams). Nearby towns have names like Lincoln, vesper, hays,
sylvan grove, and Bunker Hill. There is not much traffic on the
two-lane highways leading in and out of Russell, but that doesn't
mean the trip is lonely. Drivers of passing cars greet each other
with a friendly wave.
   Closer to Russell one notices more signs of activity, several
fields in the area are covered with oil pumping stations and
grain storage buildings known as silos that show wheat farming is
an important part of the local economy. One farmer spoke of the
drought hitting the midwest:
   "Most of us are farm-related or either have farms that are
rented out or indirectly involved with farming. The last month
we've had about six to seven inches (up to 18 centimeters) of
rain in the Russell area, which is a drought-buster as far as
we're concerned. Of course when you have rain, everything else
looks bright. The lake is coming up, the ponds are full and the
wheat is looking better than it did a month ago."
   Talk of drought-relieving rain and its impact on the local
farm economy, as well as speculation on Mr. Dole's campaign were
foremost on the minds of several longtime Russell residents, who
recently got together over coffee at a local hotel, just as they
have done twice a day, every day, since 1968. The group says it
is the eyes and ears of Russell, monitoring the pulse of the
community.
   Russ Harvey, owner of a used car business, says Mr. Dole's
record as an honest broker should help his campaign:
   "We feel also that he is an honest person and we feel that he
will do the country as good as anybody else. There are no
skeletons in Bob Dole's closet (there are no questionable acts in
his past). Nobody has ever been able to find anything where he
has done anything bad or been dishonest."
   Mr. Harvey says he and the other members of the coffee group
believe Mr. Dole should be more specific about his plans. But he
says it is difficult for the Republican to make promises unless
he is certain he can keep them.
   Among those who have come to know Bob Dole well over the years
is Adolph Reisig. He played on the high school football team with
Mr. Dole and describes how the candidate helped set an example
for other young athletes in Russell:
   "Bob never broke training rules. He never smoked a cigarette.
He never drank a beer. He did not stay out late at night. He
spent a great deal of time working on his own physical strength
and the ability to be a better athlete than most of the players
that I knew. In fact a better athlete than any of the other
teammates because he just devoted the time to it. He had his own
weights that he made from concrete and steel pipe. He lifted
weights and he ran everywhere he went. He ran all over town. Bob
wanted to be a great athlete. That was his first and foremost
goal in life, was to be a basketball star at Kansas University."
   But World War II came along and interrupted his college
education. The war also left Mr. Dole with a permanently damaged
right arm. Mr. Reisig helped with his friend's rehabilitation:
   "He (Bob Dole) wondered whether it would be possible to have
some kind of a weight that he could wear on his arm rather than
pick it (the weight) up. He could not hold anything. His hand
would not grip a weight. He could not pick up an iron weight of
any kind. I made him a lead cast similar to what one would wear
with a broken arm. I made it so it could be removed."
   Mr. Reisig said Russell's favorite son was determined not to
let a physical disability prevent him from achieving the goals he
had set before the war.
   Clyde Funk, who also played football with Mr. Dole, downplayed
concerns that the candidate, at age 72, is too old to be running
for president:
   "There is something about this Kansas air and country that
makes you live just a little longer and think a little clearer. I
think Bob has the knowledge of being down-to-earth and a
compassionate man. He does not distinguish between rich and poor.
He tries to treat people as fairly as possible."
   Mr. Funk cites Bob Dole's days as Russell county attorney,
helping to reform part of the local judicial system. Mr. Funk, a
mechanic and part-time farmer, says Mr. Dole was fair in his
dealings. Mr. Funk says as president, Bob Dole would be fair to
the American people.
   Mr. Funk, Mr. Reisig and the others agreed that the difficult,
lean years of the 1930s, with a depression and a severe drought,
helped shape Mr. Dole's reputation as a serious, hard worker. As
one biographer of the Republican presidential candidate puts it,
"there was never enough time in the day, never any time for
dreaming."
   ---------------

   ---------------
   WORLD PRESS: US POLITICS: WHITE HOUSE TRAVAILS

   DIANA MCCAFFREY
   WASHINGTON

   Analysts overseas commenting on the U.S. election year
domestic scene weighed in with mixed assessments on the recent
Senate report on the Whitewater investigation, accusations
against the Clinton White House involving a request for FBI
background files and numerous news reports about First Lady
Hillary Clinton.  Commentators were divided on whether or not all
of this amounts to "obvious political motivations" on the part of
Republicans opponents and whether or not  Mr. Clinton's chances
for re-election will be affected.  All journalists, however,
agreed that U.S. campaign politics is becoming ever more
"poisonous" and "dirty."
   Several media voices indeed found glaring Republican
partisanship behind the "daily drumbeat" of attacks on the White
House.  They also stressed that Republican criticism of the
Clintons' morals and character hides the reality that the GOP
still lacks a "real platform." Paris's conservative Le Figaro
opined,  "The Republicans' obstinacy against Hillary Clinton
shows their malaise five months before the election."  London's
centrist Independent was also critical:  "Congress has no
business rummaging around the debris of state politics.  That
such interference has been commissioned by Republicans makes a
nonsense of that party's claim...to be the party of devolution of
power to the state level."  Opinionmakers spoke of the "paranoid
tendency" in American political life; "the Clintons are merely
its latest subjects," one said.  Writers pointed out that the
Whitewater investigation has been the "longest, most expensive
investigation" of a U.S. president although it was, in the words
of one German daily, "unable to present...evidence of wrongdoing
by President Clinton."  A number of dailies decried the treatment
of Mrs. Clinton by the Republicans, suggesting that it approaches
a "political lynching."  Observers also pointed out that recent
polls continued to find the president ahead of presumed
Republican contender Bob Dole.
   Others, however, believed there is a "solid basis" behind the
accusations against the Clintons, and that this does not bode
well for the Clintons in November.  London's conservative Times
maintained that "it is becoming harder to dismiss all this as a
Republican plot."  Criticism of Mrs. Clinton was a central theme
in some commentaries. London's liberal Guardian held that the
first lady was "the source of almost all [the president's]
trouble, acting as a jamming signal--blocking out his message as
he seeks re- election in November."  Some commentators preferred
to withhold judgment, noting that much can transpire between now
and November.
   Election-year politics was also seen as affecting such issues
as welfare reform and U.S. immigration policy. Pundits fretted
that both the Democrats and Republicans are playing "political
football" with important issues of the day.

   This survey is based on 21 reports from 12 countries, 
   June 10-24.

   EUROPE

   GERMANY:  "Longest, Most Expensive Investigation Of A U.S.
              President"

   Right-of-center Die Welt (6/20) held, "The longest and most
expensive investigation by Congress on a U.S. president has now
come to an end....  But the integrity of the Senate could have
been damaged more by [its] obviously partisan motivation...than
the target of the fact-finding committee- -President Bill
Clinton....  Committee Chairman D'Amato...and his Republican
colleagues were...unable to present...evidence of wrongdoing by
President Clinton.... Instead they presented allegations that can
be raised in view of some unresolved problems, which are,
however, important only for those who mix up suspicion with clear
evidence.  The fact they they tried to make Hillary Clinton, who
never apeared before the committee, the main culprit...shows that
Bill Clinton was an inappropriate target."

   BRITAIN:  "Bill Clinton Married To America's Worst Politician"

   Writing in the liberal Guardian, Washington correspondent
Jonathan Freedland commented (6/24), "Bill Clinton is married to
America's worst politician.  She is the source of almost all his
trouble, acting as a jamming signal-- blocking out his message as
he seeks reelection in November.  The U.S. electorate is
struggling to hear his calls for education, the environment and a
balanced budget, but they're all but drowned out by the daily
drumbeat of Whitewater--in which Hillary Clinton has become the
chief suspect.  And now this: yesterday's revelation that she is
a Nancy Reagan-style nut, communicating in a semi-trance with the
spirit of Eleanor Roosevelt and taking advice from an
acid-dropping mystic who sounds like a cross between Doris Stokes
and Rasputin....
   "Whatever her skills as a lawyer--however booksmart, in U.S.
argot--she is inept as a politician.  She is weak exactly where
her husband is strong, in the prime art of politics: the ability
to understand how an action will be perceived before taking
it....   But this may not be all bad for Bill Clinton. 
Republicans like to charge that all paths in the Whitewater
scandal lead to one person: Hillary Clinton.  That means they
don't lead to her husband.  And this is the Republicans' biggest
problem.  By focusing on her, they take the heat off him. 
Especially since there is nothing anyone can do about her....
   "Some Arkansas veterans wonder if this is deliberate, a kind
of Good Cop/Bad Cop game the Clintons have played before.  She
becomes the villain, and we like him more. Even if it is not so
calculated, the travails of Hillary Clinton are not the 'war on
all women' some Democrats have alleged.  Admittedly, there are
plenty of sexists who loathe Hillary Clinton simply because she
is a woman with power.  But most Americans were ready to give her
a chance. By her self-indulgence, arrogance and incompetence she
has blown that chance. And now millions of women--and her
husband--could pay the price."

   "Grave Wisdom"

   The conservative tabloid Daily Express held (6/24), "Hillary
Clinton, we learn, is having calming (for her) chats with people
beyond the grave, including Gandhi.  Her husband Bill, as is too
well known, prefers to share his intimate thoughts with the
living.  With an election coming, spirits might be safer.  We
suggest Elvis Presley, another musical southerner with a
cheeseburger problem."

   "The Best Route To Welfare Reform"

   The independent weekly Economist editorialized (6/21), "Nobody
suggested that reforming America's anti-poverty program would be
easy.  Around 15 million  Americans, single mothers and their
children, are on welfare.  Many have made a habit of living
fecklessly off the state.  A recent poll shows that 93% of
Americans want the system reformed.
   "On the two main principles of reform--the obligation to work
or train in order to get benefits, and time limits on
payments--the political parties agree.  But despite Bill
Clinton's pledge to 'end welfare as we know it,' and despite the
efforts of the Republican Congress to push through welfare-reform
bills, almost no progress has been made.
   "Republicans blame Mr. Clinton; he blames them.  Both sides
are playing political football with the issue.  Mr. Clinton has
already vetoed two welfare-reform bills, even though one of them
differed rather mildly from a Senate bill he had said he liked. 
Now Republicans plan to send him another welfare bill that will
be bundled in with limits on Medicaid, drawing yet another veto. 
Not long ago, too, Mr. Clinton raced his Republican rival, Bob
Dole, to endorse Wisconsin's welfare-reform plan as 'the boldest
yet attempted,' now he is said to be hesitating.  Wisconsin's
plan needs 83 'waivers,' permissions from the president to be
exempted from federal rules.  Mr. Clinton, shoving Mr. Dole, had
hinted strongly that he would grant them all and soon.  Now the
administration will review the plan line by line, and permission
is up in the air.
   "What is Mr Clinton's problem? Not the principle of the
waivers: he has already granted 63 of them to 40 other states. 
Nor the basic structure of the Wisconsin program: the obligation
for recipients to work, a lifetime limit of five years in the
system, provision of health care and child care for working
mothers.  It seems that what bothers him is one petty thing (a
60-day residency requirement) and one big thing the fact that
Wisconsin would no longer allow people who are denied benefits to
appeal in court, because welfare would no longer be considered an
automatic entitlement....  Money is another vexed issue....   Yet
this is the problem with welfare reform:  Experimentation costs
money.  Republicans who have tried to equate welfare reform with
deficit-cutting are misguided.  If, as they hope, federal
payments for welfare can be replaced by block grants to the
states to spend as they please, those grants must remain
generous, at least at first, in order to allow creativity.
   "Wisconsin's plan, while not perfect, combines radical
rethinking of fundamentals with open-handed public provision. 
Early trials are encouraging: since 1987, the state's welfare
rolls have fallen by 42%.  At the least, this is a brave local
test of the sort that America needs more of.  At best, it could
be the model for a national reform.  Mr. Clinton should quickly
find the courage of his previous convictions."

   "The President, His Wife, And The Paranoid Tendency"

   The centrist Independent (6/20) commented in a lengthy
editorial, "Whitewater is a tale of two parts. It helps to be
clear why Whitewater Part One, the actual money- grubbing, is
irrelevant, and why it would still be irrelevant to the good
government of the United States of America even if Mrs. Clinton
had speculated her way to a multi-million dollar fortune.
Whitewater Part One is about money in Little Rock.....  Congress
has no business rummaging around in the debris of state politics.
That such interference has been commissioned by Republicans makes
a nonsense of that party's claim (made strongly a decade ago by
Ronald Reagan, and more recently by Newt Gingrich) to be the
party of devolution of power to the state level.  So what is this
Whitewater fuss? It is, very simply, a way of doing down
Democrats by fuelling the limitless American appetite for
conspiracy stories. The paranoid tendency in American political
life is alive and well; the Clintons are merely its latest
subjects. Huge amounts of time and effort have been taken up in
an inquiry which turns out, on this week's evidence, to be wholly
inconclusive....
   "Whitewater Part Two concerns what the Clintons allegedly did
to cover up Whitewater Part One....   A committee which takes its
cue from Senator Alfonse d'Amato is not to be trusted to find
matters of fact let alone make judgements of motive or
significance....   The second, more important conclusion is that
after 770 pages the president's wife has not been convincingly
implicated in wrong-doing....  If high federal office is now to
be reserved for men with blameless sexual and marital records
whose spouses are squeakier clean than Caesar's wife, American
political leadership will become even more bereft of talent than
it already lamentably is."

   "Sleaze Emerges As The Trickiest Hurdle In Re-Election Race"

   Writing with a different point of view in the conservative
Times, lecturer in politics at Oxford University Dr. Tim Hames
commented (6/20):  "It is becoming harder to dismiss all this as
a Republican plot. Senators may be easy to label as partisan and,
at a long stretch, even a special prosecutor could be accused of
bias. The FBI director, Secret Service agents' reports on the
events surrounding Vincent Foster's office on the night of his
death, and an Arkansas jury are impossible to portray as Dole
political stooges. The more that ordinary people are seen giving
evidence, the worse for the White House.....  To compound
[President Clinton's] potential problems, with his opponents
controlling Congress he has no real domestic agenda....  Given
that the election is nearly five months off, opinion polls are
bound to be volatile. However. it is hard to believe that another
battering on Whitewater and the FBI files will not have a further
impact."

   "Unprecedented Damning Indictment Of A First Lady"

   The conservative Times said in its lead front page report
(6/19), "Senate Republicans yesterday released a massive report
on the Whitewater affair that amounted to the most damning
indictment of a First Lady in American history.  On issue after
issue, the Senate Whitewater committee's Republican majority
accused Hillary Clinton of wrongdoing, directly challenged her
truthfulness, and said aides had perjured themselves to protect
her. They accused her of complicity in a thoroughly fraudulent
Arkansas land deal in the mid-1980s; they insisted that she had
ordered a top- level cover-up after Vincent Foster's suicide in
1993, and they named her as the person most likely to have hidden
records of her legal work for the corrupt bank at the heart of
the Whitewater affair.  But the White House and Democrats on the
committee rejected the charges of a 'kangaroo court' and accused
the Republicans of using sly innuendo in a despicable
election-year witch-hunt."

   FRANCE:  "Political Lynching"

   Under the above headline, Georges Suffert authored an
editorial in  conservative Le Figaro (6/10): "The Americans are
champions at politically using scandals....  Today, Hillary
Clinton is the target.  Bob Dole and the Republicans lack breath 
to oppose the serene course of Bill Clinton toward reelection.  
Therefore, they remember that a good scandal is better than a
painstaking platform....  U.S. media, which don't have much to
work on, welcome these  direct attacks against a woman who has
many faults, including that of  being good-looking.  The real
question is the following:  Will newspapers,  radio and TV
channels decide to launch an assault against the presidential
couple?  Bob Dole is not antipathetic, but he does not  trigger
enthusiasm in the public.  Should they (media) start a new 
operation of political lynching?... This poses a question in
democracy:  has moral discourse become the best weapon of
opponents in all the regimes? The Hillary Clinton affair will
bring the answer."

   "Poisonous Campaign"

   Conservative Le Figaro's Washington correspondent Stephane
Marchand  reported (6/20): "The Republicans' obstinacy against
Hillary Clinton shows their  malaise, five months before the
election....  With no real platform, the Republicans are forced
to wage a campaign which promises to be very  poisonous."

   ITALY:  "Mrs. Clinton Headed For A Likely Crucifixion"

   Paolo Passarini wrote from Washington in centrist La Stampa
(6/19),: "Nobody has  ever seen anything like it.... The official
presentation of the Senate Whitewater investigating committee
resulted in an act of accusation against the First Lady without
precedent in American history.  It is obvious that politics,
especially in an electoral year, has played and is  playing a
strong role in this matter.
   "But it is also true that things have always gone that way,
just as in the Watergate scandal....  Hillary  Clinton is headed
for a likely crucifixion."

   BELGIUM:  "One Man Has Key To Clinton's Future"

   Evita Neefs wrote in independent Catholic De Standaard (6/24),
"U.S. President Bill Clinton is still leading comfortably his
Republican opponent Bob Dole in public opinion polls.  The
electorate does not seem to plan to deny Clinton a second term. 
But the president's fate lies in the hands of one man:  Kenneth
Starr, who is forcing Clinton to testify a second time in the
Whitewater trial. If Starr indicts President Clinton or First
Lady Hillary Clinton, there will be little hope for a Clinton re-
election....  To date, Starr has questioned Clinton three times
under oath in the White House and, in January, he questioned
Hillary about the mysterious discovery of documents in the White
House which were thought to be lost, but which are crucially
important in the Whitewater investigation.  Such a thing has
never happened to a first lady....  No one knows what Starr has
discovered.  But the White House is concerned.  If he were to
indict Hillary, Clinton might be forced to relinquish a second
term."

   "Greenspan Renominated As Fed Chairman By Senate"

   New York correspondent Peter Vanderbruggen observed in
financial Financieel-Economische Tijd (6/21), "It has taken
several months but, yesterday, the U.S. Senate approved the
renomination of Alan Greenspan as chairman of the Federal Reserve
by a vast majority....  It does not matter who wins the race to
the White House in November:  The course of America's national
bank has been determined for another four years.  Alan Greenspan
can go on subtly playing U.S. interest rates with the goal in
mind of keeping U.S. economic growth around 2.5 percent....  The
discussion regarding the role of the Fed seems to be over for
another four years--a fact which Wall Street will certainly not
mourn about.  Indeed, Greenspan's prudent policy on inflation and
the wholesome consequences (of this policy) for the bonds and
shares markets have made him Wall Street's darling."

   CANADA:  "Whitewater And Watergate"

   Frederic Wagni re wrote in French-language La  Presse (6/21),
"The Americans were angry with their government and Nixon was the
perfect  target....  The Americans wanted to get rid of
Nixon...but they do not want to get rid of Clinton now. 
Naturally this could all change during the campaign....  All that
would be needed for the popularity of Clinton to suffer would be
a few missteps in the economy or  in foreign policy.  At such a
moment, questions about his moral character would begin to gain
importance.  His weaknesses could no longer be overlooked and his
failings would become major flaws."

   SPAIN:  "Whitewhater: Caesar's Wife...And Caesar"

   Independent El Mundo (6/19) remarked:  "Everybody knows that
there is a political component to the Republican attack.  This is
an electoral year and Dole has little to do against Clinton.  
However, and despite this, everything indicates that there is a
solid  basis behind the accusations against Clinton."

   EAST ASIA AND PACIFIC

   CHINA:   "Selfishness And Dirtiness Of Current U.S. Politics"

   Washington correspondent Ning Xianxu filed for the official,
Beijing municipal Beijing Daily (6/24), "The hubbub of the
Whitewater case has been a focus of dispute between the 
Democratic and Republican parties from its beginning.  What is
interesting is that Republicans and Democrats within the Senate
Whitewater case investigation committee issued separate editions
of the case report.
   "The vastly different conclusions drawn by the Democratic and
Republican parties reflect the selfishness and dirtiness of
current U.S. politics.  Since this is a presidential campaign
year, the dispute over Whitewater will not disappear easily.  On
the contrary, with the election campaign already underway, the
dispute will become increasingly fierce."

   AUSTRALIA:   "Odd Political Dynamic Working In Clinton's
                 Favor"

   The Washington correspondent for the national, conservative
Weekend Australian (6/22) commented,  "If Republican challenger
Bob Dole is ever going to make up enough ground on the U.S.
president...to replace him in the White House, he should be
making significant gains right now.  Instead he is going nowhere
fast, and one of the main reasons seems to be a rather odd
political dynamic that is working in Mr. Clinton's favor....  The
latest opinion polls suggest that a barrage of new accusations of
lying and deceptive behavior by the president, his wife and his
closest aides is having little impact on his re-election campaign
because voters accepted long ago that integrity and morality were
not exactly his strong points....  With the economy strong and
many Republicans giving up hope that retired General Colin Powell
will agree to run as Mr. Dole's vice president, the  Republicans
see Mr. Clinton's simmering scandals as one of their few chances
to get back in the race before it is too late."

   PHILIPPINES:   "Aides' Overeagerness Bedevils Clinton"

   The independent Manila Times said in its editorial (6/23):
"For Clinton, getting re-elected--which is something no Democrat
president has achieved since Truman in 1948--might be easier said
than done.  For what has bedeviled Clinton is the overeagerness
of some aides, driven with the rush to get things done at the
White House, being too loose with their actions....
   "The summoning of the FBI files had the telltale markings of a
witchhunt, a foray for incriminating evidence.  The incident,
coupled with Clinton's endorsement of a bill to make it easier
for authorities to snoop on citizens with suspected terrorist
leanings or actuations, can only raise distrust and suspicion
among the U.S. public.  It is an issue the Republicans are sure
to hit hard as the campaign progresses.  Ironically, the
Democratic Party, which has a recent record of liberal politics
in national office and regard for individual rights, now finds
itself in the uneasy position of being pictured as made up of
Watergate- type aides and assorted backroom dealers ready to
break into the private lives of citizens.  Yet sadder still is
the fact that more and more Americans are finding it hard to
believe that their private lives are better now in the face of a
recession under the Democrat Clinton."

   LATIN AMERICA

   CHILE:   "Trent Lott:  New Senate Majority Leader"

   Conservative, influential El Mercurio commented (6/21) on
Trent Lott's election as the new Senate majority leader: "The
election of Trent Lott of Mississippi as the Senate's new
Republican leader completes an important process of change of
power in the leadership of the legislative branch in
generational, geographical and ideological terms.... This is the
first time in history that the Republicans (of the South) preside
over the legislature....  With 54-year- old Lott, the power of
the post-war generation is also reaffirmed....  Lott has a
reputation for being affable, but also persistent and aggressive.
He has acute political judgment which he never ceases to take
advantage of in the complex strategies that govern the Senate's
legislative process."

   GUATEMALA:  "U.S. Election And Militarization Of U.S. Border"

   Top-circulation Prensa Libre opined (6/19), "During an
election campaign many important subjects are discussed by the
electorate....
   "Two years ago, Californian politicians began an anti-
Hispanic campaign which has had enormous political repercussions
in the United States....  The U.S. Congress is in the process of
approving laws that will prohibit legal U.S. residents from
receiving government aid if necessary....  Young people, despite
being legal residents, will not be able to receive benefits to
pay for their studies. What is the future of these youngsters if
they can't study?  If a person is gravely ill, at the point of
death, he will not receive medical care unless he pays in advance
in cash. The law is so ridiculous that giving birth does not
qualify as an emergency service.  These laws are absurd, they
violate the human rights of millions of people. The Clinton
administration has militarized the borders of the United States. 
He won't visit the U.S.- Mexican border.  It looks like a war
zone where the 'ilegales' (prisoners of war) are captured by the
INS and are, at times, treated inhumanely.
   "Millions of Hispanics have registered to vote during the next
U.S. presidential election. Clinton, like Dole, has recognized
that the Hispanic vote is the key to determining who will be the
next president of the United States."
   ---------------

   ---------------
   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*** 