down on the organization. Instead, myrncall was directed to another machine,rnwhich instructed me to leave my name,rnaddress, and message—and a credit cardrnnumber to which my donation could berncharged. Insulted at this impersonal systemrnof dial-a-good-deed, I left what Irnhoped was an ironic expression of myrn”curiosity” about the foundation and arnrequest for further information.rnOver two months later, I received arnslick brochure that describes the foundation’srnbeginnings last fall with reliefrnmissions to Romania and Sarajevo, asrnwell as its plans to focus in the shortrnterm “on helping the children of LosrnAngeles, America’s most diverse city,rnand the site of last year’s civil disturbance.”rnComplete with a customizedrnlogo (a black hand and a white handrnholding a globe with a Band-Aid overrnthe crack running down its middle) andrna photograph of Jackson holding andrnkissing a smiling baby, the pamphletrnurges its reader to “help Michael healrnour children.” The brochure came withrna letter, which gives extra incitement torncharge a contribution by offering a Healrnthe World T-shirt to donors of $35 orrnmore and a Heal the World sweatshirt torndonors of $60 or more.rnLike the Chicago radio station thatrnasked listeners to call in and donate tenrndollars by credit card to the children ofrnCabrini Green last Christmas, Jacksonrnand his foundation are basing their plearnfor charity on the assumption that wernAmericans are incurably shallow, evenrnin our desire to help others. Our demandrnfor instant gratification apparentlyrnextends even to our humanitarian instincts:rnpictures of starving Somalianrnand neglected American children stir usrnto want to “do our part” (and relieve ourrnguilt), but we are only willing to rousernourselves from our daily routine if nornhassle is involved. Charity has becomernas easy as dialing an 11-digit phonernnumber and giving a 16-digit VISA numberrnfrom the comfort of our armchair.rnLike telephone sex, whereby callers payrnmoney for sexual stimulation, telephonerncharity allows us to feel good withoutrnrequiring any commitment or expenditurernof time and energy. More importantly,rnwe send our money across town,rnacross the country, or around the worldrnwithout working to alleviate, or even acknowledging,rnthe problems in our ownrnneighborhoods—or even in our ownrnfamilies.rnIn Michael Jackson’s case, the manrnwho sets himself the immodest goal ofrn”healing the world” blames his parentsrnfor robbing him of his childhood by forcingrnhim into show business and discountenancesrnhis sister LaToya, whornsmeared her entire family a year or so agornin a much-publicized book. While Jackson’srnactivities and appearances duringrnrecent years (opening his Neverland Valleyrnranch to children suffering from lifethreateningrnillnesses; visiting a Washington,rnD.C., girl who was mauled by fourrndogs; and creating Michael Jackson ProductionsrnLtd. to “harness the mass mediarnfor the improvement of this troubledrnworld”—to take just a few examples) appearrnto demonstrate genuine concern,rnthey are acts of a lonely man groping forrnsome kind of purpose. His statement atrnthe Grammy Awards ceremony (at whichrnhe was presented with a Grammy LegendsrnAward by his sister Janet), “I wantrnto thank all the children of the world, includingrnthe sick and the deprived….I amrnso sensitive to your pain,” is the desperaterncry of a man who is himself sick andrndeprived.rn—Christine HaynesrnFEDERAL VOTING procedures arernnow being challenged in ways that couldrnundermine the very integrity of the franchise.rnAnd there is almost no public discussionrnof the issue and little effectivernopposition.rnThe idea is to increase voter participationrnby relaxing voter registration proceduresrnand qualification requirements.rnWe are told that low voter turnout isrndue to “discriminatory” requirementsrnimposed on people who want to vote butrncan’t deal with the “hardship” of registration.rnSo the effort becomes one ofrnturning nonvoters into voters, whichrnsounds like an unassailable, civic-mindedrnidea. The trouble is that it presents arnnefarious potential for influencing electoralrnoutcomes by manipulating therncomposition of the electorate. The questionrn”Who votes?” becomes crucial. Itrnbecomes the political battleground.rnThough voting requirements vary inrndetail from state to state, some basicrnqualifications have prevailed throughoutrnthe country since 1789. Two of these arernthat voters reside in the jurisdiction inrnwhich they vote and that they are UnitedrnStates citizens. These are not specifiedrnin the Constitution but are generallyrnaccepted assumptions at the core ofrnour idea of democratic government as establishedrnby the Founding Fathers.rnThe residency requirement is underrnheavy assault, particulady in large citiesrnwhere community responsibility hasrneroded and where groups are encouragedrnto resist authority. Illinois passed arnlaw in December 1992 providing for voterrnregistration of people without a residentialrnaddress. An executive of thernChicago Coalition for the Homelessrngreeted this development enthusiastically,rnsaying, “The people who are homelessrnconsider it a great victory. It hasrnbeen an empowering experience forrnthem. It is significant because voting isrna way of restoring the citizenship ofrnhomeless people.”rnEven without legislative sanction, thern1992 election provided an opportunityrnfor getting homeless people, along withrnother nonvoters, to the polls on an organizedrnbasis in various cities across therncountry. It required no furtive approach.rnIndeed, it was publicized as a communityrnservice program to “get out the vote.”rnPolitical activists rounded up homelessrnpeople, herded them into buses with thernpromise of free coffee and doughnuts,rnand then took them to the polls, offeringrnfree advice and assistance in casting thernvote. In San Francisco, for example, withrnthe cooperation of voting officials, thisrninnovative plan for group voting wentrninto action in advance of the election. Itrndidn’t happen without substantial organizationrnand expense. It was a practicernrun for even more ambitious poll-packingrnm 1994 and 1996.rnMost states require advance registrationrnby voters. But these proceduresrnhave already been relaxed in severalrnstates. Even where they still prevail, localrnelection officials often make their ownrnrules and procedures, exercising a surprisingrnamount of autonomy, especiallyrnin larger states.rnThe political opportunity for changingrnthe composition of the electorate comesrnto a head in the so-called “Motor Voter”rnlegislation that was passed in Congress inrn1992, vetoed by President Bush, and subsequentlyrnpassed again this year. It providesrnfor automatic voter registration ofrnpersons who apply for a driver’s license orrnrenewal, and for registration by mail. Itrnalso requires various federal, state, andrncounty agencies to implement programsrnfor mass voter registration; expensive projectsrnimposing heavy costs on states andrnlocal governments that already face seriousrnfinancial difficulty.rnSince application for a driver’s licensern8/CHRONICLESrnrnrn