I and a number of other wealthy Americans are contributing millions of dollars to grass-roots organizations engaged in next year's presidential election. We are deeply concerned with the direction in which the Bush administration is taking the US and the world. If Americans reject the president's policies at the polls, the US can write off the Bush Doctrine as a temporary aberration and resume its rightful place in the world. If American voters endorse those policies, the US shall have to live with the hostility of the world and endure a vicious cycle of escalating violence.
In this effort, I have committed US$10 million to America Coming Together, (ACT) a grass-roots get-out-the-vote operation, and US$2.5 million to the MoveOn.org Voter Fund, a popular Internet advocacy group that is airing advertisements to highlight the administration's misdeeds.
ILLUSTRATION: YU SHA
This is a pittance in comparison with money raised and spent by US conservative groups.
Rather than a debate on the issues, there's been a lot of name-calling about my donations by such groups as the Republican National Committee and the National Rifle Association. In an attempt to taint the groups I support and intimidate other donors, they imply that my contributions are illegitimate or that I have somehow broken the law. In fact, I have scrupulously abided by both the letter and the spirit of the law. Both America Coming Together and the MoveOn.org Voter Fund are organizations that, according to a specific reference in the US tax code, are entitled to receive unlimited contributions from individuals. Both groups are fully transparent about their motives and activities. Both file detailed and frequent reports with government regulators.
America's most recent campaign finance law attempts to limit the influence that special interests can gain by financing candidates and so level the playing field between the Republican and Democratic parties.
My contributions are made in that spirit.
President George W. Bush has a huge fundraising advantage because he has figured out a clever way to raise money. He relies on donors he calls "Pioneers," who collect US$100,000 apiece in campaign contributions in increments that fall within the legal limit of US$2,000 that any individual can give, and relies on donors he calls "Rangers," who collect at least US$200,000. Many of these Pioneers and Rangers are corporate officials who are well situated to raise funds from their business associates, bundle them together and pass them along with tracking numbers to ensure proper "credit" to each individual donor of US$2,000.
Thus they are buying the same level of access and influence for their corporate interests that they previously obtained with their own and corporate funds.
With the help of these Pioneers and Rangers, Bush is on track to collect US$200 million.
To counter the fundraising advantage obtained by this strategy, I have contributed to independent organizations that by law are forbidden to coordinate their activities with the political parties or candidates. That law minimizes or eliminates the ability to purchase influence in exchange for my contribution. Moreover, I don't seek such influence. My contributions are made in what I believe to be the common interest. ACT is working to register voters, and MoveOn is getting more people engaged in the national debate over Bush's policies. I recognize that the system is imperfect, and I wish there were a different way to level the playing field. Making contributions to ACT and the MoveOn.org Voter Fund is the best approach I have found.
I have been an advocate of campaign finance reform for almost a decade, including the legal defense of the current legislation. I recognize that every new regulation has unintended adverse consequences, but this does not mean reform should be abandoned. Clearly, the rules need to be updated in the light of next year's experience.
Some good proposals have already surfaced, including one from the major sponsors of the current campaign finance legislation. This bill should be supported. Among other measures, it calls for an increase in the federal match for small contributions and would raise the spending limit for candidates who accept public funding to US$75 million -- changes that would reduce the bias toward big-money donors.
Free airtime for candidates is also important. This would reduce the cost of campaigns and the distorting effect of commercials. Full disclosure and transparency are clearly beneficial. It is important that people know where financial support is coming from. I have been open about my contributions, and I welcome the debate they have sparked. In the meantime, as the debate continues, my contributions help to ensure that the money spent by those trying to re-elect Bush doesn't overwhelm the process.
George Soros is chairman of Soros Management Fund and author of "The Bubble of American Supremacy."
Recently, China launched another diplomatic offensive against Taiwan, improperly linking its “one China principle” with UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 to constrain Taiwan’s diplomatic space. After Taiwan’s presidential election on Jan. 13, China persuaded Nauru to sever diplomatic ties with Taiwan. Nauru cited Resolution 2758 in its declaration of the diplomatic break. Subsequently, during the WHO Executive Board meeting that month, Beijing rallied countries including Venezuela, Zimbabwe, Belarus, Egypt, Nicaragua, Sri Lanka, Laos, Russia, Syria and Pakistan to reiterate the “one China principle” in their statements, and assert that “Resolution 2758 has settled the status of Taiwan” to hinder Taiwan’s
Can US dialogue and cooperation with the communist dictatorship in Beijing help avert a Taiwan Strait crisis? Or is US President Joe Biden playing into Chinese President Xi Jinping’s (習近平) hands? With America preoccupied with the wars in Europe and the Middle East, Biden is seeking better relations with Xi’s regime. The goal is to responsibly manage US-China competition and prevent unintended conflict, thereby hoping to create greater space for the two countries to work together in areas where their interests align. The existing wars have already stretched US military resources thin, and the last thing Biden wants is yet another war.
As Maldivian President Mohamed Muizzu’s party won by a landslide in Sunday’s parliamentary election, it is a good time to take another look at recent developments in the Maldivian foreign policy. While Muizzu has been promoting his “Maldives First” policy, the agenda seems to have lost sight of a number of factors. Contemporary Maldivian policy serves as a stark illustration of how a blend of missteps in public posturing, populist agendas and inattentive leadership can lead to diplomatic setbacks and damage a country’s long-term foreign policy priorities. Over the past few months, Maldivian foreign policy has entangled itself in playing
A group of Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) lawmakers led by the party’s legislative caucus whip Fu Kun-chi (?) are to visit Beijing for four days this week, but some have questioned the timing and purpose of the visit, which demonstrates the KMT caucus’ increasing arrogance. Fu on Wednesday last week confirmed that following an invitation by Beijing, he would lead a group of lawmakers to China from Thursday to Sunday to discuss tourism and agricultural exports, but he refused to say whether they would meet with Chinese officials. That the visit is taking place during the legislative session and in the aftermath