AGENDA 2000: FOLLOW THE MONEY

	October 8 ,1999
	15 weeks ago, we started asking individuals and groups, "What should the 2000 presidential campaign be about?" We also invited viewers to participate via the On-Line NewsHour and by mail. Terence Smith has a report on the response, centering on campaign finance reform.

TERENCE SMITH: Campaign finance reform is the subject of renewed legislative efforts in congress this week and the stuff of Supreme Court arguments put forth this week, it is also the issue cited most often in e-mails and letters sent to the NewsHour in our Agenda 2000 series. The series asks viewers to tell the NewsHour what issues they would like to see discussed by the presidential candidates. Almost 1,200 of the nearly 10,000 responses have mentioned campaign finance reform as the most pressing issue in electoral politics today. An overwhelming majority of those respondents are calling for a change in the way campaigns are financed. Maurice J. Salem of East Fishkill, New York speaks for many: MAURICE J. SALEM, East Fishkill, New York: I believe that we must first resolve the campaign financing problem before we can tackle any other issue. We cannot possibly expect the candidates' response to the issues to be relevant or sincere because it is the source of the candidates' campaign funds that will determine the issues and the candidates' position on the issues. TERENCE SMITH: Chris Corcoran of Colorado Springs strikes a similar chord: CHRIS CORCORAN, Colorado Springs, Colorado: I would very much like to have the politicians start focusing on the people rather than on corporate interests. I think that's the primary reason that so many feel like their lives are out of their control despite this so-called prosperity. The government has been handed over to the highest bidder. TERENCE SMITH: Catherine Burke of San Gabriel, California, recommends public funding of campaigns in order to combat the perceived disenfranchisement of the electorate: CATHERINE BURKE, San Gabriel, California: In politics there is a golden rule: Whoever has the gold rules. If we the people pay for the election campaigns we will rule; if not, we won't. The present system precludes dealing with key problems in our society, especially the problems of those who do not have D.C. lobbyists. It also makes all politicians look dishonest as all, except the very rich, have to raise money. TERENCE SMITH: Will Shapira of Minneapolis sees the issue in more dire terms: WILL SHAPIRA, Minneapolis, Minnesota: Unless we totally eliminate campaign contributions and go to a system of publicly funded campaigns we will continue to widen the gap in this country between rich and poor; we'll also be fomenting social unrest and before too much longer, threatening the very fabric of our society, the future of democracy and our nation, itself, in my estimation. TERENCE SMITH: Shapira is pessimistic about the prospects for reform: WILL SHAPIRA: Asking a corrupt Congress to reform itself may be likened to the fox policing the henhouse: It just ain't gonna happen. TERENCE SMITH: Like many respondents, Seymour Wiesenfeld of Fairfield, Connecticut, considers campaign finance reform as central to restoring equality. SEYMOUR WIESENFIELD, Fairfield, Connecticut: How can we as a nation declare our system of government fair and equal when the big money interests control our elected officials? It's time to reform the election process and nominate candidates based on their abilities to govern on the issues that are best for their constituents as a whole without tainting the system in favor of a privileged few. TERENCE SMITH: But some viewers see the issue in a different light. Mack Rollie of Tucson, Arizona thinks that reform will not serve the interests of the people but those of the media. He writes: "It is interesting to me that any politician who supports campaign finance reform is loaded with praise and recognition from the press. Upon reflection, it seems obvious that the effect of laws restricting campaign contributions and spending will be to increase the power of the major media, not the people. Big media each and every day can and do blanket our country and the world with stories and news that persuade and even control voters on issues and candidates. Media stands to gain even more in dominance and power by adoption of campaign contribution limitations, as proposed.@ Michael Cerniglis of Madison, Wisconsin, thinks another mainstay of modern campaigning should be paid more attention: MICHAEL CERNIGLIS, Madison, Wisconsin: With the presidential election over a year away, we are already beginning to hear questions and concerns over campaign finance reform. At the heart of the issue is negative advertising. The harsh reality is, however, that negative advertising is extraordinarily effective. But, for a democracy to work, it must be made up of an educated populace, and the ease with which public opinion is swayed with negative ads is a disheartening example of just how unsophisticated voters can sometimes act. The fact that negative ads work is a far greater threat to democracy than unfettered electoral spending will ever be. TERENCE SMITH: None of the responses so far has mentioned the most frequently cited complaint of critics of campaign finance reform, namely, that limits on spending inhibit freedom of speech and could violate the First Amendment. Nonetheless, a recent poll by the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press says 74 percent of Americans believe political donors wield too much influence in the American political process. Running a close second with 64 percent is the news media. But only 8 percent believe the voters to be too influential. JIM LEHRER: A reminder again that you can participate in our agenda 2000 project by visiting our Web site at pbs.org/NewsHour and also by regular mail to: The NewsHour, Box 2626, Washington, D.C., 20013.