PBS: Think Tank: Transcript for "What if we held an election and everybody came?"

« Back to What if we held an election and everybody came? main page

Transcript for:

What if we held an election and everybody came?

ANNOUNCER: 'Think Tank' is made possible by Amgen, recipient of the PresidentialNational Medal of Technology. Amgen, helping cancer patients through cellularand molecular biology, improving lives today and bringing hope for tomorrow.

Additional funding is provided by the John M. Olin Foundation and theLynde and Harry Bradley Foundation.

MR. WATTENBERG: Hello, I'm Ben Wattenberg. This fall, thepresidential and congressional candidates will spend $1.6 billion on theircampaigns, far and away an alltime high. Money and politics shocking. Have wegone too far?

Joining us to discuss the matter are: Ellen Miller, executive directorof the Center for Responsive Politics, which tracks campaign spending; Tom Mann,director of governmental studies at the Brookings Institution and coauthor of'Congress, the Press and the Public'; Paul Herrnson, professor of government andpolitics at the University of Maryland and author of 'Congressional Elections:Campaigning at Home and in Washington'; and Glenn Simpson, reporter for 'The WallStreet Journal' and coauthor of 'Dirty Little Secrets: The Persistence ofCorruption in American Politics.'

The question before this house: Is campaign spending out of control? This week on 'Think Tank.'

In recent weeks, reports of illegal Korean and Indonesian contributionsto the Democratic National Committee have sparked new questions about campaignfinances, both legal and illegal, in both parties.

In the wake of Watergate, Congress passed legislation in 1974 thatlimited the amount of money that citizens could give to political campaigns: athousand dollars to each candidate and $5,000 to political action committees, orPACs. But there was a loophole. Contributors, including corporations andunions, could give an unlimited amount of socalled soft money to the parties notto the candidates.

In addition, there's more money. Advocacy groups, like the NationalRifle Association, can run ads supporting mostly Republican candidates. TheAFLCIO is spending $35 million in 1996, mostly to help Democratic candidates.

Now, in theory, President Clinton and Senator Bob Dole have each beenlimited to a mere $62 million in public campaign money. But if you factor in allthe hard money, the soft money, the PAC money, the independent expenditures, andso on and so on, it is estimated that the presidential election will cost almost$800 million in 1996. That's up from $311 million in 1992, well more than adoubling.

Bob Dole has seized on this issue and has proposed campaign financereform.

BOB DOLE (Republican Presidential Candidate): (From videotape.) Wewent through an experience in Watergate, our party. And after that happened, wethought we had cleaned up politics and cleaned up campaign finance reform. But obviously, that hasn't happened. Therewere a lot of abuses back in the '70s. Both parties got together and we producedcampaign finance reform. But it's quite clear, based on what's happening here inrecent days, that we didn't go far enough.

MR. WATTENBERG: Critics say this attack is somewhat hypocriticalbecause both sides are guilty. If Bob Dole is virginal on this issue, it isretroactive virginity.

Let us begin the questioning with you, Ellen Miller, and then let's goaround the room. Is our election system out of control?

MS. MILLER: Without question, the campaign finance system for ourelections at all levels is out of control. There's more money that's being spentthan ever before. You cited the number, 1.6 billion (dollars) for all federalelections. It's coming from fewer people. Less than 1 percent of the Americanpeople make a contribution of $200 or more. And it's coming more from interestedindustries and interest groups. They have an axe to grind.

And, you know, I think finally, the other thing that's out of controlis that the ability to look at the relationship between the campaigncontributions and the decisions that come out of Congress or the White House isall too easy to make. I mean, the ability for contributors to cash in islikewise out of control.

MR. WATTENBERG: Paul Herrnson, are we out of control? ``

MR. HERRNSON: I would agree, we are out of control to some degree. There has been a breakdown of the regulatory regime that governs campaignfinance, and as a result, the campaign finance system is more loophole than law.

Another problem is there has been a bifurcation of campaign politics. Candidates are now running one campaign for resources and another campaign forvotes, and they're becoming very separate. And those that participate in the onecampaign, that is, the one for resources, are very different than those whoparticipate in the campaign for votes.

MR. WATTENBERG: Tom Mann, what is the view from the BrookingsInstitution, that noble institute?

MR. MANN: I don't know about Brookings, but I can tell you, I agree. I think the regulatory regime is collapsed. It's a joke. We have on the booksrestrictions on size of contributions, but nowadays people in the parties, in theWhite House, in the Congress, if told someone is maxed out, they say, no problem,we can take care of that. That is, we can find a way to channel your dollars.

MR. WATTENBERG: Maxed out explain that.

MR. MANN: Means up to the limit of a contribution, say, an individualcan make to a candidate or to a political party. They say, we can channel, wecan launder your dollars in ways to have unlimited contributions. That's what'sbuilding the cynicism right now. Politicians are shaking down individuals,companies and unions to raise money in a way that makes a joke of the wholeregulatory regime.

MR. WATTENBERG: Glenn Simpson.

MR. SIMPSON: Well, clearly, the regime has disintegrated to the pointwhere it doesn't really exist anymore and there is a sort of a loophole culture. I think you do have to remember that at least part of the system clearly isworking, which is that people are still required to disclose the sources of muchof this money. And that's why we're having scandals right now, because reporterscan actually go and look up where this money is coming from, and if they'rewilling to do the investigation, they can find out that some of it appears tocome from Indonesia or from Spain or anything like that.

So clearly, this one shred of the system continues to work, and maybethat's a little bit of a hint as to, you know, the recipe for fixing it.

MR. WATTENBERG: I wonder if any of you would like to comment on whatEllen said. I mean, let us stipulate, because I think we all agree on that, thatthe system is out of control. In terms of its regulatory function, it's just gonebananas.

But Ellen says this is leading, in effect, to institutionalizedcorruption, that people that this big money is buying things, and in a sense itis unanswered because the people can't talk. But don't these variouscorporations, unions, institutions that pour this money in, aren't they alsorepresenting people? In other words, a corporation can employ 50,000 people; aunion can have a half a million members; an independent expenditure, the NationalRifle Association, whoever you want, they do represent memberships, theyrepresent voters. Isn't this a market democracy, the money system? MR. MANN: The problem is the inequalities that develop in a systemlike that. Those economic interests that are best off, those groups that arebest organized are bound to be more effective in a system of campaign financesuch as the one we have. And the concern is that individuals not active inpolitics, not active in groups tend to have their voice heard less. That's whywe have political parties, presumably, and one of the hopes for reformers, atleast some reformers, is to build a bigger role for those groups that representthe individuals that are heard much less in the process.

MS. MILLER: Yeah, I also think that, you know, ironically, Bob Dolesaid it best. He said, 'There are no poor people's PACs.' I mean, there are no for general the average citizen, there is no representation in a democracy thatreally has become, in essence, a cashocracy.

It's clear you talk to any member of Congress. Any member will say,those who give get something more than just good government. They get access toargue their case. And so if the vast majority of people can't afford toparticipate in this political system, then they really are, in a practicalsense, left on the sidelines.

MR. WATTENBERG: Spending for poor people in the last 30 years, say,has skyrocketed. I mean, defense has gone down, other things have gone down. Meanstested programs, socalled I mean that's how you measure poor people haveskyrocketed. Who bought it for them?

MS. MILLER: I'm not sure that's precisely true.

MR. WATTENBERG: Trust me on that one.

MS. MILLER: I think the real issue here is, you know, if we have ademocracy that's based on how much cash you can give. There is almost no one inthis country who believes that these special interests who fund electioncampaigns don't get something in return that they in turn pay for.

MR. SIMPSON: I just think we need to sort of be mindful of historyhere. I mean, the system has always rewarded those who are able to organize andaccumulate cash behind their point of view. I mean, you know, this is sort ofthe defining principle of politics is, you know, get organized.

MS. MILLER: No, no, no. Get organized is right, but get organizedwith money? I think that sort of strikes at the

MR. SIMPSON: Getting organized, the definition of getting organized isaccumulating money.

MS. MILLER: No, no, no. Money, I think, in a democracy is not a goodtool for political participation.

MR. HERRNSON: We're acapitalist democracy, though, and we've always had that. We've always had moneyplaying a role.

MR. SIMPSON: I mean, we sort of define the essence of our politicalsystem as money. I mean, the courts have said, you know, money is speech.

MS. MILLER: I think that flies in the face of what our foundingfathers had in mind in terms of political equality, because money isn't evenlydistributed in American society. I think organization is absolutely key, butorganization written by how big a check you write? I think that's highlyquestionable.

MR. WATTENBERG: I have a letter here addressed to, 'Dear Friend,'various lobbyists, from one of the major political parties, which asks for a this is a special fundraising drive. 'Individual dinner tickets, $25,000 innonfederal funds. A table,' and you get to be called a cochair, '$250,000 to buya table before Election Day.' And they say, 'There has never been an undertakingof this size before.' (Laughter.)

MR. MANN: They say with pride.

MR. WATTENBERG: And they say, 'You can expect to hear from us soon.'

MR. HERRNSON: So did you buy the table?

MR. WATTENBERG: Yeah, does it buy the table? Right. You betcha.

MS. MILLER: No, but not only are you not buying a table, but there arepeople out there who are more than willing to buy the table. And you bet theyget to have at their table, you know, a lawmaker, you know, a key staffer to thecandidate, whichever one this may be, to argue their case, to create the kind ofsubtle relationships that Washington is so well known for.

MR. WATTENBERG: All right, let's read this for a moment and go back alittle bit into history. Why was the 1974 postWatergate law, the one thatbasically runs our system now, why was that established?

MR. MANN: It was designed to deal with the abuses in the 1972election, in which Maurice Stans, among others, were shaking down corporationsfor milliondollar contributions to help reelect the president. It was seen asoutrageous flaunting of what was supposed to be limits on contributions fromcorporations and the like.

So that's I think that was the act, the set of behavior in '72stimulated the law. Right now in 1996, we have returned to how the system thatwas operating in '72.

MR. WATTENBERG: But at that time, it could be done secretively?

MR. MANN: No disclosure.

MR. HERRNSON: Brown paperbags were common. Brown paper bags filled with cash were common.

MR. WATTENBERG: In other words, a corporation or a union or a privateperson could give a brown paper bag of cash to a candidate, and it was neverknown.

MR. HERRNSON: Well, the problem was there was nodisclosure. There was no Federal Election Commission. There was no one tofollow up and investigate on any of this.

MR. WATTENBERG: And it was not illegal, or it was illegal? MR. HERRNSON: No, it was illegal.

MR. WATTENBERG: But there was no enforcement in that case?

MR. SIMPSON: Well, in the wake of Watergate, there were prosecutionsof a lot of people. A lot of people ended up getting off, but a number of peoplewere prosecuted. I think Armand Hammer, famously, was prosecuted.

MR. WATTENBERG: And then ultimately got a pardon.

MR. SIMPSON: That's right. (Laughter.)

MR. SIMPSON: For which he made a large contribution. (Laughter.)

MR. WATTENBERG: For which he made a large contribution.

MS. MILLER: Yeah, but what's interesting is that, you know, Tom saysthis scandal is back now again. The only difference now is that instead of brownpaper bags full of cash going under the table at the White House, contributorsare writing checks and they're being deposited openly.

MR. WATTENBERG: But people like Glenn Simpson at 'The Wall StreetJournal' can now have a much easier time digging it out because it's allpublished.

MS. MILLER: Not as easy a time as he should have, but yes.

MR. SIMPSON: You know, I mean, that's what keeps me in business.

MR. WATTENBERG: I understand.

MR. SIMPSON: But you have to ask yourself, you know, I mean, are weever going to get rid of this, or are we just going to simply wish it away to thepoint where it is going to back under the table and I'm not going to be able tofind out about it and none of us are going to hear about it?

You know, I mean, I would argue that this sort of thing is going to goon. In a lot of ways, it's better to have it out in a transparent environmentwhere I can write about it and Ellen Miller can scream about it and we can allsort of, you know, raise issues of what's proper and whether there's conflicts ofinterest. I don't think you can think that it's just simply going to be wishedaway or bought away by dunning the taxpayers.

MR. MANN: No one disagrees with the importance of disclosure. Thequestion is, is that all we can do? No holds barred; raise what money, extortwhat money you want as long as you disclose it. And Glenn writes about it in 'TheWall Street Journal.' We will the public will decide on whether it'sappropriate or not, and we'll all live happily ever after.

MR. WATTENBERG: Is that your position?

MR. SIMPSON: That is an exaggeration, but essentially that's the nutof my position. I do feel that there

MR. WATTENBERG: Which is that people could give that if I wanted togive a million dollars or $10 million, I could do that. I mean, didn't ClementStone give Nixon $2 million in 1972 dollars, which would be what, about six orseven million dollars?

MR. SIMPSON: There should be broad there should be limits, but theyshould be broad, and we should encourage a lot of activity, similar to what wesee today. It's just that, you know, the politicians are on one extreme and thereformers are on the other, and there's sort of no compromising over sort of, youknow, general, broad limits that encourage freedom of activity. I mean, we haveto remember, political activity is First Amendment activity. You know, this iscore national, constitutional values we're talking about here, exercising thefranchise of democracy.

And you know, we have to give people a fair amount of leeway to raiseand spend money, which is basic to

MS. MILLER: Right, but there are lots of people who really disagree, Ithink, with the constitutional decision that equates money with speech. I mean,Senator Bill Bradley has really said it best. He said, you know, the FirstAmendment decision on this equates a rich man's wallet with a poor man's soapbox. I mean, the First Amendment protects the free speech rights of the wealthyat the expense of the nonwealthy.

I mean, I think when you talk about reform, let's throw it to theAmerican public and see what they think, whether they'd like to have broadlimits.

MR. WATTENBERG: Paul Herrnson, can you give us some of theconstitutional background? There was an original case, and now there's been a newcase that the court

MR. HERRNSON: The new court interpretationsaid that a political party can collect hard money and spend that money.

MR. WATTENBERG: What does hard money mean?

MR. HERRNSON: Money within the federal system, subject to the limits set by theFederal Election Campaign Act. And then spend that money as if it were a PACclaiming to be independent. So a candidate can be running a campaign in Maine orIowa or Illinois or somewhere and putting out a message, and then the politicalparty can on its own make an independent expenditure that corresponds to thatmessage. So that's one ruling.

Another ruling was about these issue advocacy campaigns, where it usedto be parties could make generic pitches, 'Vote Republican for a change, it'smorning in America,' or those children's ads the Democrats ran, which would havea general theme, but not mention a candidate by name.

Now the parties can put on ads that mention candidates by names so longas they don't 'elect' or 'defeat' or some other key word that

MR. WATTENBERG: So they can say, 'Congressman Jones is a jerk and hevotes against children.'

MR. HERRNSON: Exactly.

MR. WATTENBERG: And they can also say, 'Challenger Smith is awonderful fellow, and he supports children.' And they can list one as a Democratand one as a Republican, but the only thing they can't say, having made a hero ofone of them and a villain of the other, is who to vote for.

MR. HERRNSON: That's right, that's right. That's a major change.

MR. MANN: That's why the whole system has really become a joke now. I, too, believe individuals and groups ought to have the right to raise and spendmoney and actively participate in the political process. But we've set with thehelp of the court this artificial line between political, or hard money, spendingand nonpolitical, or issue advocacy. And it's a joke and the latter isoverwhelming the former.

What I'd like to do is free up the political parties to spend as muchmoney as they want on behalf of their candidates, but require that the money theyget, all of the money they get, come under the restrictions of federal electionlaw.

That is to say, federalize the system by eliminating all soft money. You can raise the limits if you want to have individuals give a little bit moreto the party, but then free up the parties to do what they want to.

MR. WATTENBERG: They'll be freed up, but they won't have any money.

MR. MANN: Well, yes, they can raise money. Right now individuals cangive what, $20,000?

MR. HERRNSON: That's right.

MR. MANN: Individuals can give $20,000 a year to a national politicalparty. That's not chump change. They can raise money.

MR. WATTENBERG: The amount of soft money from 1992 to 1996 these arethe estimates from your group, Ellen went from $83 million to $240 million. In one cycle,from '92 to '96. That is a tripling, up to a quarter of a trillion dollars insoft money, just so we know what we're talking about.

MR. SIMPSON: Which is why we need to sort of I think Tom's got theright idea we need to sort of stop wishing for a perfect system and find aresponsible one, a reasonable proposal that will give parties and will give allthis fundraising energy a place to vent itself, but will, you know, put it withinsome reasonable limits, because otherwise, I mean if we keep fighting for aperfect solution, you know, the system is going to just continue to disintegrateand explode.

I think we also have to remember, Ellen, that, you know, it has alwaysbeen the case that the wealthy have been the most politically active, and most,you know, ordinary folks I mean, you know, you couldn't persuade me to give $50to a candidate, not to mention a thousand (dollars). You know, most people Iknow are just like me. That's always been the case.

MR. HERRNSON: Well, part of the problem is, as you pointed out earlierwith those figures, there is a lot of money out there. And that money will findits way into the system, really, no matter what we do. If we pass reform thatlimits people to giving $20,000 in hard or soft money to the parties andfederalize it, we still have all these state elections, and the money will flowinto those state elections with the goal of turning out Democrats or Republicans,depending on who the money goes to.

Another key point is that with all of this money flowing in, it usuallyflows to either competitive races because someone wants to have an impact on theoutcome or, even more often, to incumbents. And we end up with a real problemwith the distribution of money in campaigns. You've got really safe incumbentsin very powerful positions, committee chairs or ranking members, raising in themillions in the typical House race, and then a challenger on the other side withmaybe $50,000 or $150,000 or $200,000. And the incumbent is well known and hasgot lots of support and a real good political machine in the district, and thechallenger is invisible, and it makes for an uncompetitive contest.

MR. SIMPSON: The problem with that is that it seems like that's thecase, but how do you explain the intense competition right now in our system? You know, I mean right now we're going into a congressional election we werejust talking about this, you know where there is an amazing number of incrediblycompetitive races.

MR. WATTENBERG: And nobody knows who's going to win the Congress.

MR. MANN: That's why there's so much money flowing in, because thereare these 140 House races that are really up for grabs and the control of theHouse and the Senate are up for grabs, so everybody is pouring money in.

MS. MILLER: These races are more financially competitive today thanthey have been in the past.

MR. WATTENBERG: Let me make just one point, if I might. Let's goaround the room once to finish this up, again starting with you, Ellen. And I amgoing to appoint each of you president. I'm going to give you two terms, I'mgoing to give you a sympathetic Congress, a sympathetic Supreme Court. You aregoing to control all the state legislatures. You are a democratic dictator. Congratulations, Madame President. You have 45 seconds, maximum, to tell me whatyou would do.

MS. MILLER: I think I would send a bill to the Congress thatprohibited the private financing of congressional and presidential elections inthe primary and general election period. I would do that because I would saylet's look at the problems we have today of the influence of private money, howit screens candidates, how it pulls on legislators after Election Day, how itmeans that accountability is granted to those who give big money.

MR. WATTENBERG: So you are for total public financing of elections?

MS. MILLER: I believe it's the only way to create a distance betweenthe elected officials and the cash constituents who fund their election campaign.

MR. WATTENBERG: President Herrnson.

MR. HERRNSON: Well, I would begin from the assumption that no matter what I did, privatefunding would find its way into politics, because this is a capitalisticdemocracy and that's the backdrop of our elections.

I would recognize the major problem to be a lack of competition in alot of House races, Senate races and even state and local races, although Icouldn't deal with that. So I would remind the voters and the Congress that theairwaves that TV and radio broadcast over belong to us, and I would require allthe stations to give media time to candidates.

I would also require the Post Office through the Treasury to give freemailings to candidates. And I would try to equalize the gap between challengersand incumbents and rich candidates and poor candidates. I would still allow forsome private funding, but with strict disclosure and strict limits.

MR. WATTENBERG: Mr. President.

MR. MANN: I'd allow private funds to continue to play a role in ourpolitics, but I would eliminate all soft money by federalizing the system, butfree up the parties to spend their hard dollars in any way they want.

I would also commandeer the airwaves some way and give blocks of timeto the parties to allocate among their candidates so that we could actually getthe messages of challengers as well as incumbents out.

And thirdly, I would deal with this joke of a distinction between issueadvocacy and electoral campaigning, and ensure that groups outside that engage in election advertisingare subject to the same restrictions on funding as federal candidates are.

MR. WATTENBERG: Thank you, Mr. President. Please give my regards tothe first lady.

Mr. President, Glenn Simpson, you'd have to leave 'The Wall StreetJournal' in order to take you to move into 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, but you gotit.

MR. SIMPSON: Right. The first thing we do is we give journalistssubpoena power. (Laughter.) Then we go to a fourday work week.

MR. MANN: Impeachment.

MR. SIMPSON: No, we declare a grand compromise, which is we say to allthe unregulated players who are proliferating so quickly, come back inside thesystem and we will loosen the rules so that we can all get along inside of thesystem. We will give you the freedom to raise large amounts of money and to makereasonably large amounts of campaign contributions. But you have to disclose it,you have to acknowledge the fact that you are indeed a political player, i.e.,Christian Coalition or organized labor. And that, you know, would be the basicframework for what I'd do.

And I would, notwithstanding my joke, increase disclosure to make itmore possible for people to find out what is going on. You know, some sort ofreasonable limits would be a good idea, but broad enough that we could all havefreedom of movement.

MR. WATTENBERG: Okay, thank you. And thank you, Ellen Miller, TomMann, Paul Herrnson, and Glenn Simpson.

And thank you. Come visit the new location of our web sitewww.pbs.org. Or as usual, you can reach us at: New River Media, 1150 17thStreet, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20036.

For 'Think Tank,' I'm Ben Wattenberg.A

ANNOUNCER: This has been a production of BJW, Incorporated, inassociation with New River Media, which are solely responsible for its content.

'Think Tank' is made possible by Amgen, recipient of the PresidentialNational Medal of Technology. Amgen, helping cancer patients through cellularand molecular biology, improving lives today and bringing hope for tomorrow.

Additional funding is provided by the John M. Olin Foundation and theLynde and Harry Bradley Foundation.

Back to top

Think Tank is made possible by generous support from the Smith Richardson Foundation, the Bernard and Irene Schwartz Foundation, the Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation, the John M. Olin Foundation, the Donner Canadian Foundation, the Dodge Jones Foundation, and Pfizer, Inc.

©Copyright Think Tank. All rights reserved.

Web development by Bean Creative.