      |
|
|
 |
|
« Back to Are Dollars Despoiling Democracy? main page    Transcript for: Are Dollars Despoiling Democracy?transcript.726.html ANNOUNCER: Brought to you in part by ADM,feeding the world is the biggest challenge of the new century, whichis why ADM is conducting research into aquiculture and other new foodsources. ADM, supermarket to the world. Additional funding is provided by the JohnM. Olin Foundation, the Lilly Endowment, the Lynde and Harry BradleyFoundation, and the Smith Richardson Foundation. (Musical break.) MR. WATTENBERG: Hello, I'm BenWattenberg. As Campaign 2000 gathers steam, the cry for campaignfinance reform grows loud and louder. Pundits and voters complainthat we have the best government money can buy. That corporate fatcats and union bosses run the system. That the government isparalyzed. That legislation is sold to the highest bidder. One politician bragged, I can't be bought,I can be rented. But what kind of reforms, if any, are needed? Somesay there is too much money in politics, others argue there's notenough money in politics. And some say the whole problem isoverrated and overstated. Joining Think Tank to take a look at therole of money in campaigns are Lamar Alexander, former Governor ofTennessee, Secretary of Education, and Republican Presidentialcontender; Thomas Mann, Senior Fellow at the Brookings Institution,and co-author of Campaign Finance Reform: A Source Book; and NancyNorthup, Adjunct Professor at New York University Law School, andDirector of the Democracy Program at the Brennan Center for Justice. The topic before the house, campaign finance, are dollars despoilingdemocracy, this week on Think Tank. (Musical break.) FORMER PRESIDENT NIXON (From video): Ishall resign the presidency effective at noon tomorrow. MR. WATTENBERG: In the wake of theWatergate scandal, Congress revisited the American campaign financesystem, and passed the Federal Election Campaign Act Amendments of1974, which aimed to strengthen and expand campaign financerestrictions that were already in place. One of these amendments set up anindependent agency for oversight, the FEC, the Federal ElectionCommission. But in 1976, the Supreme Court ruled in the Buckleyversus Vallejo decision that much campaign spending was protected bythe First Amendment right to free speech, and struck down some of thespending limits found in the 1974 provisions. Critics of the currentsystem say that a series of loopholes have now been created, and thatcampaigns are awash in special interest money. In particular, theycriticize the largely unrestricted use of soft money contributions topolitical parties. But others argue that there isn't enoughmoney in campaigns. They say that the limits on individualcontributions make it impossible for lesser known but worthycandidates to have a chance. The current system, they claim, favorsheavily bankrolled establishment candidates, such as Vice PresidentAl Gore, or Governor George W. Bush, or candidates with extra deeppockets like Steve Forbes. Both the Senate and the House have beentrying to resolve the issue of campaign finance reform for years. There seems to be a consensus on only one thought, it's a mess. Butis it? At Think Tank we solve such problems in less than 30 minutes. Toward that end, we turn now to our expert panel. Lady, gentlemen, let me ask a simplequestion to get started, starting with you, Lamar Alexander, what isthe single biggest problem in our current system of campaignfinance? MR. ALEXANDER: Well, Ben, the biggestproblem is the government has tried to restrict free speech, and itjust can't do it. We've got 23 years of experience with it now, andthe results of limiting the ability of some people to raise money tosay what they want to say has had this effect, it's made campaignslonger, it's limited the number of candidates. When they get in,they can't say what they have to say. It's filling up the Congresswith millionaires who can spend their own money under the FirstAmendment. It's increasing cynicism among voters. It's forcingcandidates to spend most of their time with people who can give them$1,000. So, it's having just the reverse effect of what wasintended. It's actually increased the influence of money inpolitics. And what we need is free speech, individual contributionsand full disclosure. MR. WATTENBERG: Is that how you see thebiggest problem? MR. MANN: Well, government can haveperverse effects, and certainly aspects of our campaign finance lawhave been harmful, like the fact that we haven't indexed contributionlimits to account for the ravages of inflation. But the real problemis not that there's too much money in politics, or that specialinterests are calling all the tunes. The problem is what it takespoliticians to raise the money, and how those dollars are distributedamong candidates and across races. The reality is today, Ben, that lawspassed decades ago, as far back as 1907, are now being undermined bythe so-called loopholes that you refer to, and that's reduced thecredibility of our entire system of campaign finance law. MR. WATTENBERG: Nancy, you have studiedthis, what's the biggest problem right now? MS. NORTHUP: The biggest problem is thatwe have a fundamental maladjustment in the way that our campaigns arefinanced. And so what we've come to today in America is that wereally have a two-tiered system. And at the top tier is thatthinnest slice of the population that funds our political campaigns. And that is dominated primarily by the top of our economic ladder. And, those are the people who choose who are going to be thecandidates, because those are the ones able to raise the money tofund those candidates. MR. WATTENBERG: Are you talking about the$1,000 contributions, that that's the top of the economicspectrum? MS. NORTHUP: Well, those who can givemoney at that level are, in general, at the top of the economicspectrum. But also, folded into that are the soft moneycontributions going to the parties which are in amounts of $10,000,$100,000 and up. And the rest of us then are sort of in the secondtier, and aren't participating in that selection of who ourcandidates will be, but are left to sort of just vote up or down oncewe're given the slate that's picked otherwise. MR. WATTENBERG: Let's go through a coupleof these things one by one. The $1,000 limit, bad idea? MR. ALEXANDER: It's a terrible idea. Let's go back, this country was founded on the idea of free speech. Remember Thomas Paine, he called King George a French bastard, andwent on from there. And he printed 100,000 copies of his littlepamphlet Common Sense. Now, under the current thinking of somepeople, why, King George would require him to form a political actioncommittee, and restrict his contributions, and say he could onlyprint a thousand of those. So, Tom Paine, and any other candidatefor office in America needs to be free to raise enough money to saywhat he or she has to say so voters have choices. So, limits arebad. MR. WATTENBERG: So, in other words, youjust don't want to raise the $1,000 limit to index it for inflationup to $3,500 or $5,000, you want to say anybody can give any amountto anyone? MR. ALEXANDER: Ben, you either have torepeal the limits or repeal the First Amendment because if Mr. Forbescan spend all he wants, and Mr. Perot can spend all he wants, and ifpro life can spend all they want, and pro choice can, andmanufacturers can, the teachers' union can, then why can you say thatother candidates cannot? MR. MANN: The Supreme Court has actuallydisagreed with Lamar, they said the contribution -- MR. WATTENBERG: But that sounds prettyplausible. I mean, why can Steve Forbes spend $40 million from oneaccount, his own, and Lamar has got to spend three years, four years,getting it in $1,000 hunks? MR. MANN: It doesn't sound fair, andthat's the perversity of the First Amendment, which I value, andwhich the court has interpreted in its Buckley decision to say thatthere are potentially corrupting effects when funds are given fromone person to a candidate running as opposed to an individual dippinginto his or her own resources and self-financing their owncampaign. MR. WATTENBERG: It would seem to me thatit's a better democratic practice to allow somebody to fund anothercandidate rather than himself, at least it's not a complete ego trip,the candidate at least has one person in his corner. MS. NORTHUP: But, Ben, what concerns meabout that is, you're ending up with a system in which you'rebasically asking every candidate to go out and find his or her ownsugar daddy. And that can't be better democratic practice thanhaving a system in which all of the people are participating as muchas possible in the selection of candidates. MR. MANN: We ought to acknowledge,self-financed candidates have done very badly in American politics. I mean, they get attention. Al Checchi (sp) spent $30 million andgot creamed. The same is true of most wealthy candidates that haverun for the House and the Senate. MR. ALEXANDER: That is not true. TheSenate is filled with millionaires. And if you go to New Jerseytoday, you'll see Governor Whitman stepping down because the campaigncommittee has recruited a candidate with $300 million. MR. MANN: That's an anecdote. MR. ALEXANDER: How many millionaires arethere are in the Senate today? MR. WATTENBERG: Excuse me, Lamar, do youbelieve that that's why Governor Whitman has decided not torun? MR. ALEXANDER: I think it's onereason. MR. WATTENBERG: I find that so hard toaccept. I mean, here's a woman who must have total name recognition. She doesn't need $12 million to run. She's going to run possiblyagainst Governor Florio, former Governor Florio. MR. ALEXANDER: She would need to raise$10 or $12 million at $1,000 each while she's governor. You go askthe -- why don't you have on this program next time the chairman ofthe Republican and Democratic campaign committees and ask them ifthey don't spend most of their time recruiting millionaires to runwho can spend their own money. And if they're honest, they'll tellyou yes. MR. WATTENBERG: Is that right? MR. MANN: Finding candidates that havesome startup money is very attractive to the party campaigncommittees. MR. ALEXANDER: Not only attractive, itwipes out the opposition. MR. MANN: But, you know, oftentimes theyare challengers to incumbent politicians who have all of theadvantages of incumbency. And so some of the personal wealthcounters some of the advantages of incumbency. Mind you, I'd like tomake changes to free up challengers, let them raise seed money withmuch higher contribution limits, counter some of the wealthycandidates. That's all true. But the real problem, Ben, is notthere, the real problem is that in 1907, we made a decision to bancorporate treasuries financing federal parties and candidates. Andin the '40s we did the same thing with the labor unions. Today, wehave a system where elected officials and party officials are outthere, coming close to extorting corporate executives and unionofficials into giving six and seven figure contributions. A realconservative ought to be so appalled by the abuse of state power thathe ought to call for a return to the old regime, the pre-1974 regime,where you didn't have this kind of abuse. MR. ALEXANDER: I agree with that, I'm forindividual contributions. MR. WATTENBERG: So, you're against-- MR. ALEXANDER: Free speech, fulldisclosure. I'd ban all union contributions, all corporatecontributions, if the First Amendment would permit it, which I doubtit does. But if I were king, I would do that. MS. NORTHUP: But the first amendment, you would acknowledge, under current Supreme Court law does permitthe limiting of contributions. I mean, I think it's important tonote that what Tom has been talking about -- MR. ALEXANDER: Of some contributions. Itdoes not keep the teachers' union or the Right To Life Committee orSteve Forbes or Mr. Perot from contributing to themselves, andexercising their free speech. But it limits mine or yours if we'recandidates. MR. WATTENBERG: And it doesn't limitMicrosoft's ability, for example, instead of giving $100 million toLamar Alexander, he could give $100 million and Microsoft could give$100 million in soft money to the Republican Party or the DemocraticParty; is that right? MS. NORTHUP: but what we're saying is,there are not serious constitutional problems to limiting and closingthe soft money loophole. I mean the Supreme Court in Buckley said,you can limit contributions to candidates because there's an inherentcorruption in unlimited contributions. Parties and their candidatesare so intertwined, as they appropriately are in our democracy, thatthe same corruption issues come up when you're talking about partyleaders, and congressional leaders, and the president of the UnitedStates raising money for the party that's then used, this soft money,these days, really to just help the candidates get elected. And,there's not a serious constitutional problem to doing that. And whatI'd like to see is that sort of, you know, First Amendment fig leafbe taken away, and have the real policy debate, which I realize Lamaris also having, about whether or not you want to let the kind ofwealthy interests dominate our system. MR. ALEXANDER: This has been anastonishing discussion because, you know, here we have the defendersof free speech in America, the free press, the faculties ofuniversities, the thinkers at the think tanks. If somebody were tocome in and say, let's restrict the size of your chair, or the amountof your advertising so you can't say as much, they'd be up in arms. So, why should we be thinking about restricting the ability ofcandidates who are elected to represent all of the people from sayingwhat they want to say. MR. MANN: We just agreed, and George W.Bush agrees, that corporations and unions should not be able tofinance federal parties and candidates from their treasury. That'swhat most soft money is today. MR. ALEXANDER: I agree. MR. MANN: So, there's an area ofagreement. MR. ALEXANDER: Was it bad for Stuart Mott(sp) to give Eugene McCarthy a million dollars to run against LyndonJohnson in the Vietnam War? Would you have regulated that? MR. MANN: That is always the best exampleused. MR. ALEXANDER: Well, it is a goodexample. MR. MANN: That's why I'm sort ofattracted, I'm attracted to the notion, Lamar, that challengers oughtto have some freedom to raise seed money to really get a candidacygoing. What I would argue in this current round of politics is thatGeorge W. Bush is not where he is today because of all of the moneyhe's raised, but the money he's raised is an indicator of a politicalparty that desperately wants to agree on a candidate who looks tothem like a winner in November. So, money isn't the keyfigure. MR. WATTENBERG: And not only that, but heplayed by the rules and has raised $50 million. He has over 100,000givers of -- MR. ALEXANDER: Has nearly 200,000givers. MR. WATTENBERG: Yes, 200,000 givers. Now, that's a pretty big primary in itself, and it's unfortunate,certainly from your point of view, that you couldn't raise that kindof money, but he raised it according to those $1,000 limits. MR. ALEXANDER: He sure did. And I don'tobject to Governor Bush raising that money, and I commend him for it. And I don't object to Mr. Forbes spending his money. All I objectto -- the problem is not that Mr. Bush and Mr. Forbes raising toomuch money, it's the limits that keep the other candidates fromraising enough to compete. MR. WATTENBERG: Would you have anindividual campaign limit nationally of $12,000 as you did inTennessee? MR. ALEXANDER: No, I would leave it tothe individuals to make a decision about that. Disclose it every dayon the Internet, and make it an issue, and let the people make thedecision. MR. WATTENBERG: So, if Bill Gates callsme and says, Ben, I'll give you $100 million, and I don't have yourscruples, I'd say, hey, you send a check. MR. ALEXANDER: And then I'd roast youevery day. I'd say, Ben Wattenberg, you sold out to the bigMicrosoft interests in this country, and you ought not to bePresident of the United States if you're in his pocket. MR. WATTENBERG: I can't even run Windows. I haven't sold out to anybody. MS. NORTHUP: But, I also think it won'treally be the people making the choices in that case, because thecost of admission into such a race, when every person seriouslythinking about running for Senate thinks, well, I've got to puttogether 10 $100,000 backers or 30 $100,000 backers. Here youraverage candidate that doesn't have access to that kind of moneyisn't going to be able to get into the race. So although there willbe this debate, and you're right about that, Lamar, you can criticizepeople, that's why disclosure is good, about where they're gettingtheir money from. It's still going to keep a lot of goodcandidates out, and that's -- I think the other important thing tonote about this deregulation option is, it's not the way when thevoters have been given a choice to implement campaign finance reformson the state level that they've gone. They have always gone in thedirection of more regulation, not less. They do want a level playingfield. They do want a field where they're going to hear a LamarAlexander and a George Bush. MR. ALEXANDER: But, Nancy, the problem isthe media discussion is so one-sided on this that it sounds likeyou've fixed the problem when you limit the contributions, when, infact, you make the problem worse. MR. MANN: You did pretty well in lasttime around, in 1996, in raising money and garnering support. Let'ssay we just raised the limits to account for inflation, if peopleperceive that you and other candidates like you have something going,offer an alternative, are the party's ticket to success in November,as George W. Bush has demonstrated, you can raise the money you needto fund the campaign. MR. ALEXANDER: A lot of this is sotheoretical it doesn't make any sense. The way the system works isif Elizabeth Dole, let's pick an example, is calling Ben Wattenbergand saying, Ben, give me $1000, Ben might say, look I just read thepaper, the Washington Post says Bush has got it wrapped up, you don'thave a chance, why should I give you $1000. But, if Elizabeth, orJohn McCain, or I, or someone else can raise larger amounts of money,then we're in. Then the newspapers write about us, then we can raisemore money, and the front runner raises less. MR. WATTENBERG: But, your example, as Tomwas trying to point out, is the best answer to that, you bucked thatsystem in 1996 and you came within a hair's breadth of winning theNew Hampshire primary, and had you won that you would have been offand running. MR. ALEXANDER: There is some truth tothat, but you know what helped me, is because the restrictions are soheavy on candidates, including the one that costs campaigns about 10percent of everything it raises to comply with the federal rules,that a lot of my strongest competitors didn't run. And so in aperverse way the limits kept the field so small that I had a betterchance to compete. MR. WATTENBERG: Nancy, you have beenpromoting something called the clean money option, is thatcorrect? MS. NORTHUP: We have been supportive ofthe clean money option, yes. MR. WATTENBERG: And that is sort ofpublic financing at its root? MS. NORTHUP: It is, I mean, this is -- MR. WATTENBERG: Could you explain it tous just briefly? MS. NORTHUP: When I was speaking beforeabout what the voters in some states were choosing, and these arestates in which they have an initiative and referendum process, wherethey can directly design their own legislation and vote for it, inMaine and Massachusetts, and in Arizona, the voters have chosen aclean money system. And what that is is they've replaced a systemwhich is voluntary, candidates can decide to join the system, replacethe private funding of campaigns with full public funding. And candidates who agree to spendinglimits, and then also qualify, they have to collect a certain numberof -- a threshold number of small contributions, in Maine, forexample, I think it's 2500 $5 contributions to run for governor, oncethey've passed that threshold, they've agreed to voluntarily limittheir spending, they're then given the public money on which to runtheir campaigns. They don't have to fund raise after that point,they can go out and talk to the voters. And that's what they havechosen in those three states, and its' a very different system thatthe people there are asking for than what we're debating, which isjust contribution limits, no contribution limits. I agree, you need some kind of voluntaryspending limits, to go along with contribution limits. And I thinkyou need some kind of public funding to allow others to come intoit. MR. WATTENBERG: Let me put on the tablethis thought, that money and politics goes to people that the moneygivers agree with. They're not saying, Nancy, change your mind onthis and I'll give you $1000 or $10,000. They're saying, good oldNancy, she's on our side on this one, let's help her. Good oldLamar, he's on our side, let's help him. They're not saying, Lamar,jump through hoops or, Senator Jones, jump through hoops. True orfalse? MR. MANN: It's partly true, partly false. Some of the same people and interests give to both opposingcandidates, because they want to make sure they have a sympatheticcase to hear their case after the election. MR. WATTENBERG: Is that bad, to have asympathetic ear? MR. MANN: I think it's bad whenindividuals, or companies, or labor unions game the system, giveequally to both candidates -- MR. WATTENBERG: Well, labor unions andcorporations, in some different dimension, also speak for many tensof thousands of people. What's wrong with those institutions playingthe game? MR. MANN: I think there are many ways forthem to make their case, in Washington and state capitals. And Ithink feeling obliged to give big time bucks to both opposingcandidates undermines the whole notion of competition, and of theclash of ideas in a democracy, and it's harmful. But, Ben, yourbroader point was correct, the critics, some critics of campaignfinance believe that if their reforms were passed corruption wouldpass, public policy decisions would change dramatically, and we wouldlive in democratic nirvana. It's foolish. MR. WATTENBERG: You made a point thatmoney in politics is a long way from being everything. People keepquoting Jesse Unrum (sp), money is the mother's milk of politics. Infact, it's ideology, it's personality, it's the ability to campaign,it's your position on the issues. It's a whole set of -- would youbuy that, or you think the threshold is money, money, money? MR. ALEXANDER: It's not money, money,money. I mean, I went through a whole eight years as governor. Ipicked my finance chairman, because I knew he wouldn't ask me foranything, and he asked me for one thing in eight years and I vetoedit. He's still my friend. I mean, most people in public life try todo the right thing. MS. NORTHUP: I do think it's an importantproblem. Even though you're right, not every money is tainted,that's true. But, we still have a system in which just a small sliceof the population is funding our campaigns, and that's what Americanswant to see change. They may be wrong that it's going to bring aboutdemocratic nirvana, but a lot of those people are living indemocratic hell. MR. WATTENBERG: Let's just end this witha brief statement of what you think is going to happen on this frontin the next few years? MR. ALEXANDER: Reporters are going to gettired of the presidential race, at least, having fewer choices, longcampaigns, money makes so much difference, and so many millionairesrunning. And they're going to sit up when they have a choice betweenTrump and Beatty and the latest Powerball winner they're going tosay, hey, let's wait a minute, let's open this up, let's have freespeech and full disclosure. I think that's the only solution. Weeither repeal the First Amendment, or we repeal the limits. MR. MANN: We'll be wrestling with theproblems of money in politics for the length of the history of theUnited States of America. The thing that would increase cynicismmore than anything else is anything goes, the Lamar Alexanderderegulate and disclose system. We need to patch the system whereit's broken apart, to undermine the legitimacy of the law. And thenwe've got to figure out ways of freeing up money, raise contributionlimits, some modest public subsidies, bring small donors back intothe game, all the while recognizing that in every democracy in theworld only a small fraction of the citizenry actually have themotivation to contribute. MR. WATTENBERG: Nancy, what's going tohappen? MS. NORTHUP: Campaign finance reform isgoing to prevail over the next few years, because common sense is onits side. The American public wants something different. And theFirst Amendment, which I don't think Madison put in the Constitutionto let rich interests dominate, will not stop it. MR. WATTENBERG: Well, Lamar is suggestingsomething different. I mean, it isn't just something different,you're saying something different, namely tighterre-regulation. MS. NORTHUP: I'm saying somethingdifferent, which the Supreme Court has said is constitutional,voluntary spending limits, some form of public funding, contributionlimits. MR. WATTENBERG: Okay. Thank you, TomMann, Lamar Alexander, and Nancy Northup. And thank you. We encourage feedback fromour viewers via email. It's very important to us. For Think Tank, I'm Ben Wattenberg. ANNOUNCER: We at Think Tank depend onyour views to make our show better. Please send your questions andcomments to New River Media, 1150 Seventeenth Street, Northwest,Washington, D.C. 20036, or email us at thinktank@pbs.org. To learnmore about Think Tank, visit PBS Online at www.pbs.org. And pleaselet us know where you watch Think Tank. This has been a production of BJW,Incorporated, in association with New River Media, which are solelyresponsible for its content. Brought to you in part by ADM, feeding theworld is the biggest challenge of the new century, which is why ADMis conducting research into aquiculture and other new food sources. ADM, supermarket to the world. Additional funding is provided by the JohnM. Olin Foundation, the Lilly Endowment, the Lynde and Harry BradleyFoundation, and the Smith Richardson Foundation. (End of program.) 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. |