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."
US President Donald Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) were born under the sign of Gemini. Geminis are known for their intelligence, creativity, adaptability and flexibility. It is unlikely, then, that the trade conflict between the US and China would escalate into a catastrophic collision. It is more probable that both sides would seek a way to de-escalate, paving the way for a Trump-Xi summit that allows the global economy some breathing room. Practically speaking, China and the US have vulnerabilities, and a prolonged trade war would be damaging for both. In the US, the electoral system means that public opinion
They did it again. For the whole world to see: an image of a Taiwan flag crushed by an industrial press, and the horrifying warning that “it’s closer than you think.” All with the seal of authenticity that only a reputable international media outlet can give. The Economist turned what looks like a pastiche of a poster for a grim horror movie into a truth everyone can digest, accept, and use to support exactly the opinion China wants you to have: It is over and done, Taiwan is doomed. Four years after inaccurately naming Taiwan the most dangerous place on
Wherever one looks, the United States is ceding ground to China. From foreign aid to foreign trade, and from reorganizations to organizational guidance, the Trump administration has embarked on a stunning effort to hobble itself in grappling with what his own secretary of state calls “the most potent and dangerous near-peer adversary this nation has ever confronted.” The problems start at the Department of State. Secretary of State Marco Rubio has asserted that “it’s not normal for the world to simply have a unipolar power” and that the world has returned to multipolarity, with “multi-great powers in different parts of the
President William Lai (賴清德) recently attended an event in Taipei marking the end of World War II in Europe, emphasizing in his speech: “Using force to invade another country is an unjust act and will ultimately fail.” In just a few words, he captured the core values of the postwar international order and reminded us again: History is not just for reflection, but serves as a warning for the present. From a broad historical perspective, his statement carries weight. For centuries, international relations operated under the law of the jungle — where the strong dominated and the weak were constrained. That
RSS