FRIDAY

• Home
• Video
• Podcasts/RSS 
• Archives
• Young Voices
• About the Show
• Tell Tavis
• Features
• Mobile

RELATED LINKS

• Mr. Thune's official site
• Campaign profile of Mr. Thune
• Article on Mr. Thune

E-mail a friend

Tavis: I'm pleased to be joined tonight by Senator-elect John Thune of South Dakota. Last week he defeated the senate Democratic leader Tom Daschle in a very close race, a race that proved to be the most expensive senate campaign of 2004. Senator-elect Thune joins us tonight from Sioux Falls. Mr. Thune, nice to have you on the program, sir. Congratulations.

John Thune: Thank you, Tavis. Nice to be with you this evening.

Tavis: Let me start by asking you what you make of that statement that in South Dakota we had the most expensive senate race of 2004. How is that possible?

Thune: Ha ha. Well, that's a really good question. I think that this race, because of its national profile and prominence and the interest in not only the United States Senate but also in the race simply because Senator Daschle, and by virtue, his leadership position, had become, I think, the symbol for a lot of people around the country of the obstruction and the partisanship that was going on in the senate. It really attracted a lot of money and his campaign, I think, when it's all said and done, will probably be somewhere in the $20 million range and I suspect we'll be somewhere in the $13-14 million range. And that is a stunning amount of money for the state of South Dakota, for a state this size. But I do think it was indicative of the national interest that was there. And in order to compete in this race, we tried to raise money. We knew we'd never spend as much as Senator Daschle could, but we had to have the money to be competitive, and people were very generous. They saw the implications of this race, the importance of getting the senate moving again, the stakes that are involved in the election here in South Dakota and what it meant for the functioning and day-to-day working of the United States Senate. So people stepped up and were very generous. But, yes, if you put it into perspective and you think about South Dakota's size of the state relative to the larger states around the country, to think that we spent that kind of money here in South Dakota is certainly remarkable.

Tavis: I ask this question, not to cast at all any aspersion on you, but I'm fascinated as to your thoughts now that you head back to Washington as a member of the U.S. Senate. We've had debate heretofore about campaign finance reform, and I suspect in the coming years we'll have more debate, at least I hope we will, about campaign finance reform. What do you make of the fact that a state that small could have that kind of money spent and do you have thoughts about what ought to be done in the future to reform campaign spending in America?

Thune: I voted for the campaign finance reforms a couple of years ago in hopes that that would lessen the amount of money that would be spent in campaigns. But this was, of course, a campaign that was hard money. It was individual dollars. The thing that has troubled me is the way that the 527s and organizations like that have found around the soft money limitations that were put in place by the old law. But the truth is, Tavis, I am very much supportive of--I wish you could shorten the time of the campaign season and the amount of money spent. I made a voluntary proposal this year to Senator Daschle to cap spending for our race, which we both of us ended up, I think, blowing by the cap that I had proposed. But short of voluntary cap, I'm not sure that there's anything congress can do that would limit the amount of money that can be spent. I think we limit the amount an individual donor can contribute. But I would like to see campaigns funded by the people who can actually vote for the candidates. In other words, in a race in South Dakota, we would have to raise and spend money that actually was donated or contributed by people in South Dakota. I actually sponsored legislation to that effect when I was in the house. I don't think probably realistically we'll ever get it passed.

Tavis: I'm glad you said that, because I was about to ask how likely you think that is, given that the senate--you guys do represent your home state, but you do national and international and global business. There are all sorts of interests, certainly given the committees that you sit on. That's not ever likely to take hold, is it?

Thune: You know, like I said, I think that you're gonna have--you run into all kinds of constitutional issues and first amendment issues, and, you know, the courts have said, going back to 1976 in 'Buckley vs. Valeo,' that money, you know, is speech, and therefore, you know, there should be these limitations, and we do have some limitations on individual contributions, but, you know--I mean, this is a--this is a trend which--I never thought I would see this kind of money spent in South Dakota. My race 2 years ago combined, I think, the candidates spent somewhere around $12 million, and this time around, it's gonna be closer to, you know, $30-35 million spent by the candidates, and then you had some of the outside groups coming in, and you think about what that means per capita, per vote in South Dakota, it is a stunning amount of money. But again, this was a race that had implications, I think, that went beyond simply another senator. It had to do with the working of the senate, with the pattern of obstruction that was going on there, and as a consequence, it attracted a lot of interest around the country and people contributing from all over the place.

Tavis: Um, I'm sure you've heard this 1,001 times by now so that you know--a couple of things: one, they're calling you "the giant killer," given that you took Mr. Daschle out. This marks the first time, as you well know, since 1952, that a senate leader has been defeated. But what was also unusual about this race, given your point that it was a race of national prominence, something unusual happened. That is that the majority leader in Dr. Frist came to South Dakota to campaign against his opponent, the minority leader Tom Daschle. That doesn't happen, typically, in elections. Um, talk to me about that now in retrospect, even though, of course, you are the victor.

Thune: I think that Senator Frist's trip out here was, you know, to me--it's very rare that you have a senate leader that was in the kind of political trouble that Senator Daschle was here in South Dakota, and so, you know, Senator Frist's job, of course, is to try and maintain and grow the majority for the Republicans in the United States Senate. And he had campaigned here 2 years ago for me and developed a relationship, obviously, with him. I think he saw it as part of his role as leader and also as someone who had recruited me to run, to come here and do what he could to help. I think at the end of the day, this was a race that wasn't decided by those outside influences, by individual, you know, people from outside South Dakota who came in here--and both sides had people that came in--but for the most part, this was gonna be decided at the grass-roots level by the people of South Dakota. And inasmuch as it was a race with national implications and certainly a lot of national attention, and when Senator Frist came here, and, you know, Mayor Guiliani came here toward the end, and Senator Daschle had in, you know, other senators from--from, uh--current senators and former senators come in and campaign for him, I think all those influences at the end of the day really didn't have a big impact on the race. I think the race really became, you know, it was John Thune vs. Tom Daschle, and it was about, you know, getting the senate moving again and making sure that we have leadership there that will reach across party aisles and work constructively, putting aside the partisanship and the obstructionism to get things done. I think that's really what the race ultimately became about.

Tavis: I think it's easy to say those things now, and I ask this question not as a pejorative, but this race, I think even you will admit, was pretty negative in tone. Um, no senate races are love fests, but this one, you know, was really interesting. Uh, what say you now on the other side about what can be done in America, if anything at all, about the increase in negative campaigning?

Thune: You know, I think that, uh, campaigns, I've said this from the very start--this year, elections and campaigns are about differences. I mean, it's about giving people a choice, and it's part of our democracy, and I think that pointing out those differences is part of, you know, giving people that clear choice, but at the same time, it needs to be done in a way in a tone that befits the, I think, the expectations and the style of the individual states. And South Dakota's a state that is no stranger to hard-fought campaigns. I remember Senator Daschle's campaign for the senate back in 1986. At the time, it was thought to be a terrible, negative campaign, and when Senator Johnson ran against Senator Pressler in 1996, similar-type statements were made about the tone, how terrible this was. I think anytime you have a hard-fought campaign where you've got 2 candidates that have, you know, clear differences on the issues and the efforts that are made to point those differences out, at the end of a campaign, people are very weary of it. And I think there was a lot of fatigue here in South Dakota. I do think, though, it's up to us as candidates to make sure that when those messages are delivered, when we're talking about the differences between us as candidates, that we do it in a factual, honest, straightforward, you know, documentable way, and a way--in a tone at which, I think, really, people in this country deserve and expect from candidates for elective office. But there's no question this was a hard-fought and bruising campaign. We knew that going in, but given the national implications and the importance of the race, I didn't expect that it would be anything less.

Tavis: He is "the giant killer." He is the senator-elect from the state of South Dakota. His name is John Thune. Senator-elect, congratulations. You're welcome back here anytime, and I expect to talk to you any number of times in the coming months and years. Thank you, sir.

Thune: Thanks, Tavis, very much. Good to be with you.

Tavis: Glad to have you on the program. Up next on this program, some advice on giving to charity from Art Taylor of the Wise Giving Alliance. Stay with us.