University of Virginia Library

The Buying Of A Senator

If a newspaper comments at all on the
outcome of an election which was won by a
candidate whom it did not endorse, it is
usually for the purpose of saluting the winner,
giving him the benefit of the doubt which
lingers in the back of the editors' minds so
that he may at least enter office with the
support (however shallow) rather than the
hostility of the press. But in the case of
Virginia's new Senator-elect William L. Scott
we feel that such a conciliatory salutation on
our part would be journalistically
irresponsible and incredulously hypocritical
given our deeply felt disgust at the methods
used in persuading Virginia's voters to elect
Mr. Scott over incumbent William B. Spong,
Jr.

Although we wholeheartedly concur with
The New York Times' disparaging assessment
of Mr. Scott as a "blatant reactionary" and
consider him ill-qualified to be a member of
the highest legislative body in the United
States, his politics and past record are not the
primary bone of contention at this time. The
people of Virginia have the Constitutional
right to elect whomever they choose, of
whatever political persuasion, to represent
them, and farbeit from us to denounce them
for exercising this right as they see fit. What is
of concern to us, however, is what led the
people of this state to choose William L.
Scott, and at least part of the answer is our
conviction that the voters were used as pawns
in a high-stakes, unscrupulous political gambit
which may have resounding reverberations on
the future of Virginia politics.

It has regrettably become an
accepted practice in any political campaign to
present an opponent's record in its worst light
through exaggeration, sloganeering, and
misplaced emphasis. But the campaign waged
by Mr. Scott's forces exceeded even the most
elastic bounds of political ethics, and the
to-be-expected exaggeration, sloganeering,
and misplaced emphasis of Sen. Spong's
record evolved into a total and reprehensible
distortion of the truth.

Mr. Scott saturated the media with charges
that Sen. Spong had voted in favor of federal
control of firearms and in favor of a bill
which was discriminatory to Virginia voters in
order to paint Sen. Spong as selling out
Virginia,when Sen. Spong had, in fact, always
held the opposite beliefs on these issues and
had voted accordingly. Then came the charge
last week that brought a strong
denouncement of Mr. Scott's campaign tactics
from State Attorney General Andrew Miller,
that Sen. Spong had voted with Sen.
McGovern over 700 times. What wasn't said
by Scott was said by Atty. Gen. Miller: that
those 700 votes were in relation to a total
2100 votes, and that even Sen. Byrd had
voted, during the same time span, with Sen.
McGovern more than 600 times.

Mr. Scott was able to present these
distortions–which extend beyond those
accounted here–to the public due to a
controversial $200,000 loan which
was ostensibly made to him by millionaire J.
Stetson Coleman at a time suited for a
last-second media blitz, leaving Sen. Spong
neither time nor resources to effectively combat
misconceptions which the "Scott Spots" left
in the voters' minds. Despite Mr. Scott's claims
that the $200,000 played little part in his
election, most political analysts would be
hard pressed to say that the money plus the
coattail effect which Mr. Scott established as
the tone of his campaign ("Nixon Needs
Scott") were not directly responsible for his
election, particularly when one considers that
Sen. Spong was endorsed by every major
Virginia newspaper, including the
ultra-conservative Richmond Times-Dispatch
and Richmond News Leader.

But, cutting through the rhetorical chaff
of politics, what is the truth behind this loan?
It is difficult to believe that any man is going
to give away $200,000, no strings attached. If
Mr. Coleman were merely "buying a senator"
(which it looks as if he has done), that would
be bad enough. But even this seems naive.
What isn't being said about this money? That
it is "Godwin money " i.e., funds pooled by
supporters of former Governor Mills Godwin?
The evidence supporting this is becoming
more and more convincing to anyone with a
knowledge of Virginia politics. That the
money was "lent " in return for the
"cooperation" of State GOP Chairman
Richard Obenshain–cooperation in the form
of assurance that there will be no conservative
Republican around next year who would cut
significantly into Mr. Godwin's right-wing
vote in the gubernatorial race?

The suspicion that has been aroused, not
only in our minds but in the minds of
journalists and political observers around the
state, that this is indeed the case warrants the
asking of these questions now, although the
concrete answers may not come until much
later. For the present, however, the questions
are based on more than mere rumor though
less than tangible fact; call it solidly founded
speculation.

But whatever time tells us about the
ramifications of the $200,000 and the Scott
election, the last few weeks of the Scott
campaign provided us with an eye-opening
shock as to just how low a man will stoop to
achieve power and prestige.