`POLITICS': SOMEDAY WE MAY SPELL IT M-O-N-E-Y

AUSTIN -- We could be watching one of those rare etymological events
(`etymology' : the history of a particular word, the study of historical
linguistic change) as the meaning of a word changes before our eyes. Sort of
like watching a species evolve or a tectonic plate move in real time.

We now have a politics that is about money, of money, by money and for
money. How long can it be before the word `politics' comes to mean money?

A perfectly charming example, reported by Tim Golden in `The New York
Times,' involves the Clinton administration's sudden shift of policy on
buying helicopters to use in the drug war in Colombia. Since 1996, the
administration has taken the position that a rebuilt version of the Huey,
the old Vietnam workhorse, would do nicely.

According to Golden, a group of powerful congressional Republicans have
"almost an obsession" about sending the fancier Blackhawk helicopter, which
costs five times as much -- $1.8 million for a Huey II, $12.8 million for a
Blackhawk. So for four years they've been fighting over this, with the
political implication that anyone who's against spending more money is "soft
on drugs."

Now the White House has changed its position and is prepared to buy 30 of
the Blackhawk choppers at a cost of almost $400 million. Knowing our
politics as you do, naturally your first question is: How much have the
makers of the Huey been contributing lately, and how much have the makers of
the Blackhawk? Thank you for that question.

The Huey II is made by Bell Helicopter of Fort Worth, a subsidiary of
Textron. The Blackhawk is made by United Technologies Corp. of Connecticut,
and -- bingo -- United Technologies has been making big-time political
contributions.

Golden's story say that, according to the Campaign Study Group, in the 1996
and 1998 election cycle, Textron (the loser) gave $551,816 to Republicans
and $364,000 to Democrats. However, Golden reported, United Technologies and
its employees (the winner), as befits a generous and public-spirited
corporate citizen, gave not only $362,000 to Republicans and $347,000 to
Democrats, but also `twice' as much as Textron to the Democrats in soft
money.

So now we know which company makes the better chopper.

You will be further amazed to learn that some Republicans have now switched
sides and joined liberal Democrats in urging the administration to stick
with the cheaper Hueys. ("White House officials denied that politics
influenced their decision," blah, blah, blah.)

Republican Rep. Cass Ballenger of North Carolina, a Huey man, said wryly to
the `Times' that even if the U.S. buys a handful of Blackhawks and dozens of
the rebuilt Hueys, "you'd still have $100 million or $200 million left over
to buy Democrats or Republicans or whatever you still needed" to buy
approval of the plan.

Many military observers are certain that the `narco-traficantes' will simply
up their own firepower by buying surface-to-air missiles to shoot down the
Blackhawks. Excuse me, but as the hideous unpleasantness in Mogadishu in
1993 proved, you can shoot down a Blackhawk with a rocket-propelled
grenade -- and practically any group of loons can afford RPGs, much less bad
guys rolling in drug money.

In further money-politics festivities, we note the Bush campaign's timely
illustration of just what a "sham issue ad" is. Those of us who believe that
campaign finance reform is the only way to get politics back for the people
sometimes despair when it comes to explaining some of the technical terms
involved -- soft money, PACS, "AstroTurf", bundling, independent
expenditure, etc.

And then into our laps falls Sam Wyly, a Dallas billionaire, spending $2.5 m
illion for a television ad full of grossly distorted claims. Of course the
Bush campaign had `no knowledge' of Wylie's ad. Came as a complete surprise
to them.

Not since the happy events of '96, when the R's and the D's both took
contributions from Asian businessmen, have we seen such a splendid
demonstration of what the problem is. Said George W., "That's what free
speech is all about." So you just take $2.5 million out of your billions and
go run your own ad.

However, just to prove that not everything in politics is about money,
here's an example of imagination, dash and verve by the Bush campaign.
Thirty years of covering politics, and this is first politician I ever heard
accuse his opponent of being "soft on breast cancer." There's a first.

Turns out John McCain has voted 10 times to increase funding for breast
cancer research (his sister had it). But he also voted against a package of
pork-barrel spending (meaning that it was never debated or voted on by
either house but was inserted into a spending bill by powerful legislators
in conference committee) that contained money for two breast cancer research
projects. Hence, "voted against breast cancer research." You have to admit,
it's new.