June 1995, Page 122

Publishers' Page

It's the 1st Issue of Our 14th Year...

And time to do some rethinking. For example, we've never approved of political action committees, especially on foreign policy matters. The 116 one-issue pro-Israel PACs with their uniquely deceptive names are dedicated to controlling debate in Congress on the Middle East, and to incessantly taxing ordinary Americans so that Israelis can keep on living in their shirkers' paradise and keep on stealing land from their neighbors. These PACs will support any crook in Congress, so long as he or she votes their way. Since honest legislators don't, these Stealth PACs are largely responsible for systematically turning out the honest people in Congress, and replacing them with crooks for more than a generation. If you don't believe it, how else can you possibly explain the present lineup? These PACs also heedlessly put Americans on the side of...

Racist, Bigoted, Genocidal Zionazis...

In the Middle East, and thus ensure that American tourists, businesspeople, and servicemembers continue to be killed there. Their co-opted legislators also are staging a so-far fairly successful delaying action against measures that would drive silver stakes through their hearts—a line-item veto, balanced budget amendment, term limits, abolition of PACs, and tighter controls on campaign finance and a ceiling on campaign expenditures. Polls and the 1994 House elections show that all these enjoy overwhelming public support. But at this writing none have been enacted into law.

So Ask Yourself, Why? Then Read On...

If PACs can't be abolished by law, as we think they should be, is it permissible to fight fire with fire? Suppose a PAC were dedicated to diluting the role of money in politics? If it were successful, you no longer would find such astonishments as congressmembers including Jesse Helms and Newt Gingrich promising to exempt U.S. taxpayer aid to Israel from any reductions, while the most recent poll (see CNI ad on p. 112 of this issue) reveals that 80 percent of Americans now are opposed to any aid to Israel at all.

Our Misgivings About PACs...

For an evenhanded U.S. Middle East policy made up of Americans concerned that misuse of their taxes is making them personally complicit in theft and murder has not been whether such PACs are morally permissible but whether they could be made effective. Our worry was that millions of dollars are available to pro-Israel PACs while, historically, virtually nothing has come in when their opponents have tried to fight fire with fire. Instead, the pathetic Arab-American and Muslim-American PAC showings in past elections only served to justify the fiendishly effective AIPAC-organized and led PAC network that ensures an almost totally compliant Senate, House, and—worst of all—U.S. president.

It's Gotten So Bad That...

The influential Jewish Week of Queens, NY asked wonderingly in a May 5 editorial: "Is Bill Clinton running for president of a national Jewish organization? It would seem so, judging from the number of appearances he has been making at Jewish functions of late." In the same editorial the Jewish Week also explained why: "He needs to raise more than $30 million for his re-election campaign, and the Jewish community will be a prime source." In fact, that's a purposeful understatement. Most pro-Israel fund-raisers estimate that at least 60 to 90 percent of Democratic campaign funding comes from Jewish sources, which also supply perhaps 40 percent of Republican funding. So do at least 40 percent of these donations cancel each other out? Not at all. Every bit of the funding is concentrated on candidates of either party who put Israel's interests above those of the United States. Maybe that "national Jewish organization" whose presidency Clinton seeks, and on whose board all those like-minded congressmembers want to continue serving, is the U.S. Treasury, the Pentagon, and whatever other U.S. government institutions "our" president and Israel's coopted bipartisan friends in Congress decide to tap for more mandatory contributions to their favorite charity.

So We're Rethinking PACs...

But with caveats. First and last: We aren't going to start one. But we're probably the only people in the country who have the means to put together large numbers of like-minded people, cutting across race, religion and ethnicity, who might. We've started with an article on page 29 explaining the rules. Summarized, a PAC prepared to donate to five or more candidates and with 50 or more members can channel unlimited funds into an election—as the AIPAC-founded PACs do. But, as an individual, you can't. Nor will you get to see your congressmembers with your individual gift, to tell them why you are contributing. A member of a PAC hauling in a bundle of $5,000 or so in contributions will get a talk with the congressional candidate, and at least a handshake and a few words with a presidential candidate like Bob Dole, Richard Lugar or Pat Buchanan.

So What to Do?

We suggest you drop a note to the publisher (if you're a Democrat) or the executive editor (if you're a Republican) or either if you're an independent. We're assuming we'll get more than 50 names in each of the three categories. We'll assume your letter indicates you have at least $250 to spend if you agree on a PAC's recommendations, but if you're thinking in numbers above $1,000, say so. If there are some candidates you are particularly interested in helping or defeating, that's relevant. We'll insist that whatever ensues will have no paid staff and no administrative expenses of any kind. There are plenty of people willing to volunteer services, space and equipment. We'll look for commonalities. Even if we find some—political, geographical, whatever—we won't pass your name on to anyone else without your specific permission.

That's It!

We think we're riding the crest of a real surge of public opinion, and the mainstream media are way, way out of synch with their readers. For example, look at the tough article by Maury Maverick from the San Antonio Express-News, reprinted in this issue's "Other Voices" on page 113. When we read it, we thought—now he's going to get a lot of emotional calls. He did. Of nine voice mail responses to him, however, eight supported him—and very emotionally.

So It's Time to Find Out...

Whether the majority who think our way are serious about taking back the government. Meanwhile, we'll keep right on telling our readers where the presidential, senatorial and House candidates stand on the issues we all think are important, and how much they're taking from pro-Israel PACs, right up to election day 1996.

We've Heard From More Donors...

Earlier this year than ever before—but none too soon. Our big donors—U.S. companies and individuals doing business in the Middle East—have mostly vanished. Saddam Hussain burned up all the money they would have made in the 1990s, so many have pulled up stakes altogether, and those remaining are mostly hanging on just in hopes of getting their past bills paid.

So They're Not Giving Away Money!

If you've already donated in 1995, your name should be on page 120 and we thank you. If you haven't yet, please do so now. We're just as desperate as we have been in each of the past two years. The only difference is we hate to cry in public. So please help us smile by joining our Choir of Angels and...

Make a Difference, This Month.