McCutcheon Meets Adelson: What a Donor Wants
Posted by Jonathan Alter, The New Yorker
Justice John Roberts, in his decision for the majority in McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission, said that there was a difference between the “quid pro quo corruption” of someone buying off a politician and “the general gratitude a candidate may feel toward those who support him or his allies, or the political access such support may afford.” It’s a distinction that can, at times, feel like a fine one. In light of McCutcheon, it’s worth taking a look at the forms that access can take; as it happens, there was an illustrative scene last week at the Venetian Hotel, in Las Vegas.
When would-be Republican candidates for President paraded at a meeting of the Republican Jewish Coalition, also known as the “Sheldon primary,” at the Venetian Hotel—“kissing the ring” of Sheldon Adelson, the eighty-year-old billionaire who spent ninety-three million dollars in 2012 trying to prevent Barack Obama from being reëlected—most of the discussion was about where each politician stood in Adelson’s eyes. The bigger, neglected question, though, is what Adelson, a casino magnate whose company, Las Vegas Sands Corporation, is currently under investigation by two federal agencies, means to buy with his money. He has told Politico that all he wants is two potato pancakes at the White House Hanukkah party, because “the last time I was there [under President George W. Bush], they ran out of … latkes.”
But there are things that Adelson cares about besides latkes. One is Israel. Chris Christie, the New Jersey governor, made news in Las Vegas when he said, “I took a helicopter ride from the occupied territories across and just felt personally how extraordinary that was, to understand the military risk that Israel faces every day.” The phrase “occupied territories” is the same term that even a pro-Israel President like Bush and at least some of the Israeli establishment employ. (“One may not like the word, but what is happening here is occupation. To hold three and a half million Palestinians under occupation, in my mind, is bad for Israel, also for the Palestinians, also for Israel’s economy”—that was Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, in 2003.) And yet Christie, who intends to run for President based on his reputation for tough-guy candor and a refusal to back down, privately acknowledged to Adelson that he “misspoke,” and that his words were “not meant to be a statement of policy.” Presumably, Christie meant to signal that his policy, if he is elected President, like that of the other potential candidates in attendance, would be more in accord with that of their generous host. Adelson is well to the right of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), and has largely rejected a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian problem.
One word was strangely unemphasized at the Venetian: Obamacare. Perhaps the aspirants or their staffs had seen a 2012 Wall Street Journal interview in which Adelson, who is married to an Israeli physician, said, “Look, I’m basically a social liberal,” and explained that he favored “a socialized-like health care” and opposed Obamacare only because “it’s making [medical] decisions based upon money,” rather than offering full “cradle to grave” coverage, as exists in Israel.
(More here.)
Justice John Roberts, in his decision for the majority in McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission, said that there was a difference between the “quid pro quo corruption” of someone buying off a politician and “the general gratitude a candidate may feel toward those who support him or his allies, or the political access such support may afford.” It’s a distinction that can, at times, feel like a fine one. In light of McCutcheon, it’s worth taking a look at the forms that access can take; as it happens, there was an illustrative scene last week at the Venetian Hotel, in Las Vegas.
When would-be Republican candidates for President paraded at a meeting of the Republican Jewish Coalition, also known as the “Sheldon primary,” at the Venetian Hotel—“kissing the ring” of Sheldon Adelson, the eighty-year-old billionaire who spent ninety-three million dollars in 2012 trying to prevent Barack Obama from being reëlected—most of the discussion was about where each politician stood in Adelson’s eyes. The bigger, neglected question, though, is what Adelson, a casino magnate whose company, Las Vegas Sands Corporation, is currently under investigation by two federal agencies, means to buy with his money. He has told Politico that all he wants is two potato pancakes at the White House Hanukkah party, because “the last time I was there [under President George W. Bush], they ran out of … latkes.”
But there are things that Adelson cares about besides latkes. One is Israel. Chris Christie, the New Jersey governor, made news in Las Vegas when he said, “I took a helicopter ride from the occupied territories across and just felt personally how extraordinary that was, to understand the military risk that Israel faces every day.” The phrase “occupied territories” is the same term that even a pro-Israel President like Bush and at least some of the Israeli establishment employ. (“One may not like the word, but what is happening here is occupation. To hold three and a half million Palestinians under occupation, in my mind, is bad for Israel, also for the Palestinians, also for Israel’s economy”—that was Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, in 2003.) And yet Christie, who intends to run for President based on his reputation for tough-guy candor and a refusal to back down, privately acknowledged to Adelson that he “misspoke,” and that his words were “not meant to be a statement of policy.” Presumably, Christie meant to signal that his policy, if he is elected President, like that of the other potential candidates in attendance, would be more in accord with that of their generous host. Adelson is well to the right of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), and has largely rejected a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian problem.
One word was strangely unemphasized at the Venetian: Obamacare. Perhaps the aspirants or their staffs had seen a 2012 Wall Street Journal interview in which Adelson, who is married to an Israeli physician, said, “Look, I’m basically a social liberal,” and explained that he favored “a socialized-like health care” and opposed Obamacare only because “it’s making [medical] decisions based upon money,” rather than offering full “cradle to grave” coverage, as exists in Israel.
(More here.)
Powered by Blogger
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home