The Paris News from Paris, Texas on March 19, 1985 · Page 4
Get access to this page with a Free Trial
Click to view larger version
March 19, 1985

The Paris News from Paris, Texas · Page 4

Publication:
Location:
Paris, Texas
Issue Date:
Tuesday, March 19, 1985
Page:
Page 4
Cancel
Start Free Trial

Page 4 article text (OCR)

4A Th« Paris N«wt. TUM.. March 1*. IMS Opinion Summit would benefit all The White House last week sent a note suggesting a summit meeting between President Reagan and new Soviet boss Mikhail Gor- bachev as soon as it can be practically arranged and if Gorbachev agrees. The Soviets should accept. It's better to meet at the summit than at the brink. If it develops, such a summit could possibly lead to a better understanding between the two superpowers, but expectations should not be too high. For one thing, summits have not been that productive in the past. Some have been downright disastrous, like the Yalta summit in World War II and the aborted 1960 summit — the- U-2 summit — between President Eisenhower and Nikita Khrushchev. Moreover, there is a tendency to exaggerate the importance of summitry at the top. Diplomats take the position that if war is too important to be left in the hands of generals, then world problems are too complex to be left to world leaders. But all that aside, a Reagan-Gorbachev summit should be pursued for the single reason that it is important for both men to get to know each other and what the other is likely to do in a crisis. As players in a high-stakes poker game, they need to be able to read the other's character. Soviet leaders since Brezhnev have had little first-hand knowledge of the West and its leaders. Gorbachev, who visited Margaret Thatcher in London recently, already has an advantage over his two predecessors, Chernenko and Andropov, who rarely came out from behind the Kremlin walls. A summit with Reagan inside the United States, as proposed, would give him a little more exposure to the West and Western thinking. That certainly cannot hurt, but at the same time it should be fully understood that real progress in Soviet-American relations will depend on long, hard bargaining sessions between the professional negotiators, such as those now begun in Geneva. If a summit meeting does no more than improve slightly the prospects for success on those disarmament talks, it would be well worth the effort. Analysis Looking Back Court: You can't muzzle money's voice By MIKE FEINS1LBER Associated Press Writer WASHINGTON (AP) - Money speaks. And in politics, when money speaks, what it says is protected by the First Amendment's guarantees against infringements of speech. That's the gist of the decision the Supreme Court handed down Monday. It ruled, 7-2, that just as Congress cannot limit a person's right to speak, it cannot limit a political action committee's right — or anyone's right — to use money to seek to influence voters on behalf of one candidate. The decision brought to the fore a problem that since the- days of Watergate has beset those trying to reform the political process by limiting how much money can be spent on candidates. The problem: How to limit the corrosive effects of big spending without corroding the constitutionally guaranteed right of free speech. The rule that the court declared unconstitutional said a PAC could spend no more than $1,000 on behalf of a presidential candidate who accepts public financing. There won't be any noticeable effect of the court's decision because that rule has never been enforced, having been ruled invalid by lower courts. Instead, the court blocks one potential avenue of campaign reform. "Allowing the presentation of views while forbidding the expenditure of more than $1,000 to present them is much like allowing the News Analysis speaker in a public hall to express his views while denying him the use of an amplifying system," Justice William H. Rehnquist wrote for the majority. The same law that set up the limitation also provided for public financing of presidential candidates. That provision stands. Candidates for the major parties can spend their own money, or their friends' money, seeking to win their parties' nominations. Once nominated, if they accept public financing — and it is so tempting that no major party candidate has turned it down — they must forgo using any other resources for their campaign. In 1984 the limit was $40.4 million, with both President Reagan and Democrat Walter F. Mondale getting that much from the fedral government. But the National Conservative Political Action Committee spent $9.8 million urging people to vote for Reagan and another $290,204 telling them why they ought to vote against Mondale. The Fund for a Conservative Majority spent $1.6 million advocating re-election of the president. They would have been limited to $1,000 each if the court had ruled the other way. The case before the court Mon- day was narrow. It addressed only spending that is independent of the candidates' formal campaign. If a candidate's supporters want to buy a billboard to advocate his candidacy and they act independently of him, they are free to do so. Under the law, the supporters could spend up to $1,000. Now they can spend as much as they please. Instead of a billboard, they can buy a string of commercials on national television. The two justices who disagreed with Rehnquist seemed to argue that the public interest in avoiding the corrosive effects of political spending justified putting limits on how much people or committees can spend. Justice Byron R. White said the court had turned into "a nonsensical, loophole-ridden patchwork" a coherent plan Congress had enacted to limit the impact of political action committees. Justice Thurgood Marshall said the limits were justified by a desire to eliminate "political corruption and the appearance of such corruption" spawned by big spending by groups with axes to grind. Axes to grind? That's what politics is all about, said Rehnquist: "The fact that candidates and elected officials may alter or reaffirm their positions on issues in response to political messages paid for oy the PACs can hardly be called corruption." Common Cause, the self-styled citizens lobby, has argued the other side for years. "There is no constitutional right to buy political influence and political results," the organization's president, Fred Wertheimer, says. Common Cause has tried to use publicity to combat PACs. It regularly circulates lists of members of congressional committees who have accepted political contributions from PACs whose interests are before their committees. But, so far, Common Cause's lobbying has not markedly improved the prospects for legislation that would extend public financing to House and Senate campaigns — a move that would effectively eliminate PACs. The target of that legislation is corporate PACs. But NCPAC and FCM, the two groups in Monday's case, are a different breed. They are independent expenditure groups with an ideological rather than a corporate interest. Now the advocates of curbing PACs must cope with a Supreme Court decision that may raise new obstacles to halting the flow of money into the election process. EDITOR'S NOTE: Mike Feinsilber, a news editor in the AP's Washington bureau, covered the congressional debate on campaign reform legislation and has been following the issue ever since. From The Paris News files 50 YEARS AGO Tuesday, March 19, 1935 Mrs. J. T. Mullis of Searcy, Ark. is visiting her sister, Mrs. A. M. Aikin, 37 West Brame Street. RALPH WILSON has opened a store in Clarksville. Ralph Wilson's stores are now open in Roxton, Honey Grove, Cooper, Clarksville and Paris. All his stores are managed from the Paris headquarters. A NUMBER of low-priced special Studebakers are expected to arrive at the Oscar Dunagan Studebaker agency the last of this month. CITY POLICE and the sheriff's office joined hands early Tuesday morning to strike at the narcotics traffic, arresting one man and seiz- Features Debate over 'starwars' system is silly You don't have to be in favor of war to support the Reagan Administration's so-called "Star Wars" program. The argument about whether the world will be safer or more dangerous because of it doesn't have any bearing on whether or not we should go ahead with it. What they're talking about is developing a system of weapons to put in space that could destroy a nuclear bomb if it was shot at us. They don't talk so much about it but obviously this defensive weapon could very easily be made into an offensive weapon. Potpourri By Lou Boyd Take a 500-student elementary school. Therein will be 25 gifted children. Half of these won't be recognized as having that something special. Or so says a scholar who studies such matters. The "greens" of golf courses in Saudi Arabia are "browns." Not grass That takes too much water. They're packed sand and oil, both of which Saudi Arabia has aplenty. IN RHODE Island, the average telephone call lasts 3 minutes 54 seconds. In Texas, the average is 5 minutes 43 seconds. Why this difference? Andy Rooney $ Column I'd think of myself as being against anything as potentially destructive as what they're talking about except that being against it is like saying you're against progress. Progress isn't always good. It's just forward motion, but we have to go where progress takes us. It's like a flow of lava. There's no holding it back. It's easy to decide that the world would be better off without these terrible weapons they're inventing but you can't stop someone from inventing them. The world might have been better off if August Kotter hadn't invented the rifle in 1520 but who believes that if it wasn't for this German inventor, there wouldn't be rifles today? If we don't develop these space weapons, someone else will. They may not do it tomorrow or next week but they'll do it sometime in the near future. Diplomats could meet in Geneva for the next 10 years without ever coming up with a treaty or any kind of international agreement that, would inhibit every inventor in every country in the world from working on the development of a laser beam that could be directed towards one spot on earth from an orbiting satellite. A good senator from Michigan, Carl Levm, says, "Star Wars is based on the fantasy that we can gain absolute security by developing new technology not vulnerable to countermeasures." If anyone thinks that, I agree with Sen. Levin that they're wrong. I don't agree that we shouldn't proceed just because we know someone will invent something that makes our "Star Wars" devices obsolete. In spite of all the weapons that have been invented over the years, not one of them has ever given one country any permanent superiority over another. The hydrogen bomb didn't give us permament dominance over anyone. It wasn't long before other countries had the bomb. They'd have gotten it whether we made it first or not. Inventors have to keep inventing. The best scientists work without thinking about the consequences of their product. Something is there to be found and they plug away at finding it no matter what result it may have for mankind. Mankind is not their business. You could ask the same question of any invention that we're asking about our Star Wars program. We keep trying to make things easier and better for ourselves by inventing machines to take work off our hands but the machines don't seem to help. Inventions seldom make things easier or better. I always wonder where the time goes that we save with all the time-saving inventions we have. Is the average meal, cooked in the average American kitchen, any better since the electric range replaced the wood stove? The answer would certainly be "no." Should we have tried to stop someone from inventing the electric range then? "No" again. It's interesting to think about what the world would be like if no one had ever invented the automobile. Things would sure be different but would they be worse? That question is as futile to debate as the one about whether we should spend money developing our space technology. It's there to be developed. There are things to be invented. Someone's going to invent them and it might as well be us. We have to proceed and hope we're smart enough not to use what we invent to destroy all life on Earth. We probably aren't. (C) 1985 Trfbun* w,«Jia Service*, inc. ing a quantity of narcotics. MARSHALL TERRELL arrived late Sunday niguht from Laramie, Wyoming where he is a student in the State University there for a week's visit with his parents, Mr. and Mrs. Claude M. Terrell. MR. AND MRS. James Crow and Misses Evelyn and Helen Crow returned to their home in Galveston after a visit here with their father, Arch Crow. SHOW UP, the 1935 tournament play of Paris Junior College, will be presented in a preview showing at the Paris High School auditorium. The cast, headed by Rayburn Bell, includes three other students of the college, Elaine Corley, Wilbur Black and Dorothy Gregg. Today in History By The Associated Press Today is Tuesday, March 19, the 78th day of 1985. There are 287 days left in the year. Today's highlight in history: On March 19, 1920, the U.S. Senate for the second time rejected the Treaty of Versailles, setting the stage for a decade of American isolationism. On this date: In 1687, the French explorer La Salle was murdered by mutineers in present-day Texas. In 1859, the opera "Faust" by Charles Gounod premierd in Paris. In 1917, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the eight-hour work day for railroads. In 1918, Congress approved daylight-saving time. In 1931, Nevada legalized gambling. In 1942, President Franklin D. Roosevelt ordered that men between the ages of 45 and 64 register for non-military duty. In 1945, about 800 people were killed as Kamikaze planes attacked the U.S.S. Franklin off Japan. The ship, however, was saved. In 1951, Herman Wouk's war novel "The Caine Mutiny" was first published. In 1953, the Academy Awards ceremony was telecast for the first time. Voted best picture that year was "The Greatest Show on Earth.") In 1979, the U.S. House of Representatives began television broadcasts of its day-to-day business. In 1981, at Cape Canaveral, Florida, two workers were killed in an accident during tests for the space shuttle Columbia. Ten years ago: The U.S. Supreme Court struck down part of the Social Security law that authorized survivors' benefits for widows with children, but denied benefits for widowed men with children. Berry's World "C'MON — give us a little SMILE!"

Get full access with a Free Trial

Start Free Trial

What members have found on this page