|
Most parents would agree that kids these days are growing up too fast. The TV shows they watch are drenched in sex; the rock stars they idolize glorify drug use; the kids they sit next to in math class are packing handguns.
But nothing makes me fear so much for the youth of America as last week's report in USA Today that our kids have started buying politicians. "As federal candidates scrambled for cash last year," USA Today reported, "they tapped a record $2.4 million from an unlikely source, students."
In fact, the number of student contributions of $1,000 or more quadrupled between 1990 and 1996. Take 8-year-old Jason Corcoran -- a high roller barely out of his highchair -- who plunked down $1,000 for a seat at a Clinton fund-raising luncheon in October 1995. Or 10-year-old Emily Gartner, a ponytailed influence peddler who ponied up $250 for the president. Or 11-year-old Alexander Gupta, whose largesse keeps both Clinton and Nebraska Gov. Ben Nelson crammed in the hip pocket of his Toughskins.
They are just three of the 2,775 students who donated money to politicians during the last election cycle.
The biggest recipient was President Clinton, who got $217,450 from the little tykes. In true Clinton form, he took their money and then double-crossed them by supporting school uniforms.
The second biggest juvenile shakedown artist was Lamar Alexander, who picked up $124,500 from the lunch-box set. Perhaps it was in appreciation of his efforts to get the bureaucracy off their backs by eliminating the Department of Education. Third was Phil Gramm, with $90,600 in kiddie contributions. I'm not sure why. Maybe it's because he bears a faint resemblance to Elmer Fudd.
When I heard of these donations, I first shed a tear for the lost innocence of youth. Then I began to wonder: What are these kids trying to buy? A seat at the grown-ups' table? Exemption from local curfew laws? A minimum-allowance bill?
There is, of course, a simple answer. The kids aren't buying politicians -- their parents are. According to "Family Value$," a study produced by New Hampshire Citizen Action, 75 percent of student donors made their contributions on the same day and to the same candidates as their parents, who had already given the $1,000 legal limit.
In the case of Jason Corcoran, he and siblings Joe, 13, and Jessica, 17, attended the Clinton fund-raiser with their father, Thomas, a Texas businessman. The elder Corcoran claimed "it was the individual kids' money" but admitted that "it was my idea that they contribute it." In fact, by organizing "family bundling," the Corcorans gave above the $5,000 federal contribution limit allowed for political action committees. And they saved themselves the trouble of having to register as the Corcoran Family PAC.
Alexander Gupta's brothers Ben and Jess are also frequent campaign contributors, although not so frequent as their father Vinod, who gave $53,000 in the last election cycle, including a $40,000 gift to the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee. Little Emily Gartner's story is similar. She, brother Jeremy, sister Jennie and mom Sandra all gave $250 apiece on the same day that her father, Vermont businessman Allen Gartner, gave $1,000 to the Clinton campaign.
So what we have here is a form of kiddie money-laundering. Is it legal? Not if the money doesn't actually belong to the kids or if it wasn't their decision to contribute it.
Many donor parents evade the first requirement by raiding their children's trust funds. But proving that it wasn't the kids' decision to give the money should hardly be difficult, especially in cases as brazen as the Guptas'. The eldest Gupta brother, 17-year-old Jess, told a reporter last year, "Truthfully, I'm not really associated with the donations. I'm not involved in a big way. Dad makes those donations in my name."
I asked Ben Ginsberg, an election-law expert and proud dad, if my 6-year-old could make a contribution. "The child," he said, "is supposed to have reached the age of reason. So my 6-year-old could give, but nobody else's could. Also, the money has to be independently controlled by the child -- either inherited money or an unrestricted gift or money the child has earned."
That's how it can work. "Isabella," I can say to my own 6-year-old, "can you wash the dishes for Mommy, and I'll give you $1,000? And can you please have the idea to give it to that nice Mr. Alexander who is running for president?" The only snag is that she'd probably reply that she'd like to spend it on Popsicles instead. Or -- after all, since she is a child at "the age of reason" -- invest it, which at compounded interest over the next 12 years would be a good start toward a year's college tuition.
Any legal action against money-laundering parents would have to be taken by the Federal Elections Commission -- which is already something of a toothless joke.
So the practice of kids buying politicians is likely to continue for the foreseeable future, resulting in the further corrosion of our tarnished political institutions. In fact, it is already possible to detect the insidious results of the kiddie-money scandal in the behavior of our elected officials: An alarmingly large number of them act like children.
[ Printer-friendly version ]
|
