| OCR Text |
Show The Daily Utah Chronicle, Thursday, December , 134 PascScvea EDITORIAL tew coach Fasssl brings cpntamSsm to Utah football It's traditional for an infusion of new blood to bring new hope. With Friday's announcement of Jim Fassel as the new Ute football coach, the Chronicle "hopes" that a rejuvenation of the U.'s football program is in the offing. Fassel will bring a much-needshot of youth ed into the program. The 35-ye- ar old former Stanford, Weber State and Utah assistant must be able to work not only with the players, but with the university as a whole and the downtown Salt Lake community in order to make the U.'s program into a legitimate winner. Over the past few seasons (the last three in particular), the Utes haven't been able to convince anyone, except possibly themselves, that they could become a winning team. A team can't possibly generate a winning aura if nobody believes in them. Jim Fassel is a coach people can believe in. Fassel has already had to deal with a confused athletic department in his few short days back at the U. Athletic Director Arnie Ferrin first offered the position to Cal coach Gene Murphy it was only after Murphy couldn't accept that Fassel was tendered the job. head-coachi- State-Fullert- on ng Commitment to the football program is something else Fassel stressed in his comments to the media Friday. What Fassel made clear was that he wanted a commitment by both sides, not just himself. Fassel received that kind of commitment in the way of a four-yecontract, a first for Ferrin, who in the past had declined to offer any type of contract to previous Ute grid coach Chuck ar Stobart. record, the Utes obviously do have a lot of potential for the future. Such returnees as sophomore running back Eddie Johnson (the leading freshman in the nation) and senior Filipo ground-gain- er Mokofisi (the Western Athletic Conference's player of the year) will lead the Utes next year and beyond. The talent of players hasn't been that much of a problem in the past, however. Instead, the coaching situation has dealt the program all the blows it could stand. In recent years, both Wayne Howard and Stobart came close, but After this past year's tri-defens- 6-5- -1 ive couldn't quite break into the ranks of the winning programs. Howard was extremely emotional, even admitting that he "hated" BYU. Stobart, on the other hand, never seemed to get that excited about anything and nobody ever got excited about him. Fassel is aware of the problems the U. has in its football program, having coached here mid-70'- s. Being previously as an assistant in the aware is one thing, though, and taking action is quite another. The Chronicle wishes Fassel the best of luck, but realizes it will take more than an outstanding coach to turn things around. Chronicle The Daily Utah Chronicle is an independent student newspaper published during fall, winter and spring quarters, excluding test weeks and quarter breaks, by the University Publications Council. Editorials reflect the opinion of the editorial board, and not necessarily the opinions of the student body or the administration. Subscriptions are S25ayear,S10an academic quarter. All subscriptions must be prepaid. Forward all subscription correspondence, including change of address, to the Business Manager, Daily Utah Chronicle, 240 Union, University of Utah, Salt Lake Citv, Utah 84 12. 1 It It's time to check PACs rolling. Almost every day, new tales of corruption and scandal grace America's front pages. Congressional hearings are held to discuss the problems plaguing the electoral system. A consensus emerges that the way campaigns are financed must be changed. Congress is told wealthy individuals and business and labor interests are gaining too much power in presidential elections. Their role in the process must be curtailed. Several reforms are debated, culminating in the 1974 amendments to the 1971 Federal Election Campaign Act. In 1976, the American Medical Association contributed to both the Democratic and Republican candidates in three of five key congressional races. Obviously, ideology isn't behind these contributions. And when an incumbent isn't challenged, and really doesn't need any money, PACs still pour it on. "When PAC givers make contributions to safe incumbents, with both the donors and recipients aware that the funds are not really needed for immediate purposes, the contributions can only be considered of an investment nature," Wertheimer said. No doubt the PACs often succeed at their repugnant game of "you scratch my back and I'll scratch yours." "We know that votes have been bought and some members of Congress have been bribed on occasion in the past," Rep. Matthew McHugh, says OPINION BY re-elect- ion Joff Ar ring ton To give hopefuls an incentive to seek out funds from the little guy, a matching system is established for presidential primaries. The first $250 of every private contribution is to be matched, dollar for dollar, by Uncle Sam. In the general election, no private money will be allowed; nominees will finance their entire campaigns through a grant from the government. Starting in 1976, American presidential elections are to be publicly financed. Congress considered public financing for its own campaigns, but decided against it. After all, it was the presidency that had drawn all those underworld players D-N.- Y, matter-of-factl- y. A Common Cause study found that a 1977 hospital cost-containm- political action committees the FECA billion. It is impossible to determine the total cost of political wheeling and dealing, but it's a fair bet the figure is huge and growing all the time. Given the admirable way Congress handled new entities legalized by would also be subject to a corruption in presidential elections, one could expect them to clean up their own house. Wrong! Several times honorable lawmakers have tried to push reform legislation through only to see it tossed aside for more "important" business. $5,000 contribution ceiling. Well, 1976 came around and the presidential campaign was one of the cleanest in history. There were no contribution scandals; no deals struck; no political quid pro quos. Things were swell. 1980 and 1984 were much the same story. The political fatcats had been effectively removed from the presidential selection process. "As a result of the public financing of presidential campaigns, PAC contributions play a very minor role today in the financing of presidential campaigns," reports Richard Con Ion of the Democratic Study Group. But what about the other federal elections? Remember those big whigs who polluted the 1972 race between Nixon and McGovern? When the FECA was passed, they didn't just pack up their bags and go crying back to mommy. Instead, they turned their attention to Congress. Public financing didn't exist there. The orchard was ripe for picking. In 1972, the year of Watergate, $66.4 million was spent in all congressional elections. In 1976, the first year of presidential public financing, the figure soared to $ 125.5 million. By 1982, the last year concrete figures are available, it took $343.9 million to elect 435 representatives and 34 senators. Granted, spending in and of itself is not evil. Studies Public financing bills have been introduced practically every year since 1967. Hearings were held in 1977 and 1979. Still, Congress sits while public confidence erodes with each PAC contribution. It isn't that there is no support for public funding. Polls have consistently shown the general public favors the concept. And the experiences of the presidential campaigns are nothing but positive. "Public financing worked so well that I am firmly convinced the time has come to embark on public financing of congressional elections," said Morris Udall, a presidential contender in 1976. "Experience shows it will work and will be safe and that it will broaden participation and lessen this business of putting the congressional seats on, literally, a financial auction block." So what's the hang-up- ? Job security appears to be the big roadblock. Remember, PACs usually give to incumbents. Because of the lopsided fundraising advantages officeholders more than 90 percent of the enjoy, they are time. If public financing were enacted, no doubt that re-elec- ted success ratio would decline. With federal funds, challengers would be in a much better position to wage a competitive campaign. A 1980 study by campaign finance wizard Gary Jacobson concluded that had public financing been in say greater spending increases the amount of information that gets to the voter. But the sources of contributions can say a lot about the cleanliness of the process. Believe me, it ain't clean. effect between 1974 and 1978, 34 unsuccessful challengers would have been victorious. That's not Remember political action committees? They have become the new kingmakers in America. They barely existed in 1974, but by 1982 PACs accounted for 24.2 percent of all congressional contributions. That percentage will probably be higher in 1984. And PACs aren't just giving for the fun of it. They contribute to candidates to secure undue influence. "These PAC contributions are made because the interest hopes to reap some dividend. Usually it is a legislative favor, which is why PAC officials coordinate their efforts closely with their industry's lobbyists," says former Illinois Rep. John Anderson. Fred Wertheimer of Common Cause agrees. "PAC giving is giving with a purpose. It is money given by encouraging news for a paranoid incumbent. Too bad, for democracy's sake, they are so insecure. Not only would public financing dilute the perverse influence of PACs and make House and Senate races more competitive, there is good reason to believe it would also restore citizen confidence in the electoral process and strengthen the system. There is no valid excuse for Congress' failure to extend public financing to all federal elections. Who knows what it will take to get our lawmakers to finally cleanse its own elections. Perhaps only a scandal at the congressional level will Watergate-typ- e wake them up. I hope it doesn't go that far. In the meantime, let's stay on our representatives' backs about this. Hopefully, at some point, the cries of the American people for meaningful, rather than cosmetic, electoral reform will finally be heard. two-par- ty groups who then follow their contributions with lobbying on behalf of their particular interests." PAC contribution patterns tend to confirm this ef Managing Editor Associate Editor News Editor Editorial Editor Sports Editor Arts Editor City Editor Night Editor Photography Editor Asst. Sports Editor Asst. Copy Editor Asst. Arts Editor Asst. Editorial Editor .' . Jeff Arrington Peter Behle Richard R. Adams Debbie Eldredge Milne Laura Adams Mark Saal Kathryn Samuel Marilyn Abildskov Scott Woodruff . Alan Overmoe John Youngren Dory Donner Fara Warner Matt Lalli Reporters Marva Bickle Shauna Bona Lisa Carricaburu Mike Prater Darren Hawkins Margaret Hess . . . EarlCline Photographers Steve Griffin Business Manager Ad Representatives bill was defeated in committee ent of the 22 specifically because of PACs. Twenty-on- e committee members who voted against the bill had received staggering contributions from the AMA. That little political bargain cost the American consumer $27 out of the woodwork. Furthermore, individual contribution limits of $1,000 had been passed and Editorial Board: Laura Adams, Richard Adams, Jeff Arrington, Peter Behle. Editor-in-Chi- unsettling interpretation of their motives. They usually give to incumbents, and they are especially fond of incumbents who sit on committees that deal with the particular PACs vested interest the committees that deal with labor, tax and business legislation. When a race is close, PACs often flatter both candidates with a $5,000 gift as insurance. That way they will be "protected" no matter who is ultimately elected. is 1973. The Watergate scandal is just getting Jay Krajic Rob Forsgren Robert McOmber . . Julia Jenkins Steve Hausknecht Accountant Accountant Assts Kay Andersen Ron Jackson Mary Safi Classifieds Production Manager Asst. Prod. Manager Production Assistants Lori Baucum Holly Miller Robb Welch Audrey Anderson Heather Allen Todd Crosland Julie Lund Janice Austin . Typesetters . Jerry Stanger Jill Aggeler Cartoonist Rodney Dallin Marianne Macfarlane MarkMcCune |
