Wertheimer: [laughs] Well, that's incorrect. It is based on hatred of corruption --a notion, by the way, that the American people have felt throughout our entire history. Our society has never accepted corruption. We fought it throughout our history. You pass rules, you bring it under control. It works its way back. You have to keep fighting. These are cyclical issues. A United States Congress enacted the contribution limit. The Supreme Court upheld contribution limits on individuals and PACs. The reason they did it is this: they said that these contributions have the capacity to corrupt public officials and they also have the capacity to give the appearance of corrupting public officials. That's something that is going on right now and is part of why we have the cynicism in this country.

So I think Speaker Gingrich's economics, history, political science is wrong here and once again, basically, the Speaker is just scrambling for ways to try to defend the indefensible. After all, the speaker says he wants to cut PAC contributions from five thousand to one thousand dollars. Recognizing that PACs are part of lobbying activities and they are often used to buy influence. Well, a wealthy influence going from one-thousand to five-thousand dollars, isn't that going to increase the ability of individuals to use contributions to buy influence? Does the speaker somehow think that only groups would use money to buy influence? That wealthy individuals would not use the money? He knows better.

These are all strike out efforts. Whether it's striking out at Common Cause or striking out at the people who are trying to reform the system or striking out at the media or striking out at the Democrats. But, when you come back to it, you have to face the question: well, where does he stand on cleaning up this mess? Now, if you want to understand how important cleaning up the corrupt system in Washington has been to the speaker to date, I would bring one fact to the table at this point: somehow this issue was left out of the Contract With America. Somehow the same issue that had been central to Newt Gingrich's argument throughout his career in the minority -- that this was a corrupt system, that PACs were a grotesque feature in the system, that money politics was driving out and defeating citizen politicians --somehow not a word about this was included in the Contract With America. Why? Because this is one of the most unusual revolutions in the history of the world. This is a revolution that is being financed and paid for by the power establishment of this country. The corporations, the richest people in this country, are paying the bills of this so-called revolution. And I would submit to you they are not paying the bill without expecting something in return.

Q: So when Newt Gingrich says let's put together a bipartisan commission on power and political reform in the information age, Democrats and Republicans and report back next May--don't hold your breath?

Wertheimer: Well, what Newt Gingrich is saying is, "Let's see if we can figure out one more time how to take them for a ride. You have to understand that for the last three Congresses in a row, the House of Representatives has passed a campaign finance bill, the Senate has passed a campaign finance bill, and somehow we don't have any new laws about campaign financing. Somehow it has been 21 years since we last passed a campaign finance law in this country.

So, there is no evidence so far as we speak that Newt Gingrich is serious about cleaning up this campaign finance system. There is a lot of evidence that he is trying to follow the path of his predecessors in the house and somehow try to make sure, now that he sits on top as king of this corrupt system, that nobody will disturb his reign and no one is going to turn off the spigot, the real spigot.

Q: Why are the Democrats not going after Newt Gingrich on an issue like this, especially if it's an issue that has overwhelming support in the American population? Campaign reform, American people want it?

Wertheimer: Well, let's distinguish Democrats here. Again, as we speak, there are a number of Democrats in the House and Senate who are supporting very tough bipartisan bills. There is a very strong bipartisan bill in the Senate, led by Senator John McCain, a Republican, and Senator Feingold, a Democrat. There's a very strong bipartisan bill in the House, led by Representative Linda Smith and Chris Shays, both Republicans, and Representative Martin Mean and David Mingy, both Democrats. In fact, it is these bills that are starting to take off that led Newt Gingrich, in part, to decide that maybe we should have a commission and study this thing. We don't want to rush into anything.

So there are some Democrats who very much want to deal with this issue. There are other Democrats, senior Democrats, who at this hearing, instead of saying to Speaker Gingrich, 'This is wrong, time to change this system,' said, 'Oh, this sounds good to us.' Members of the House Democratic leadership. All I can say is they are making the same ridiculous mistakes they made when they ran the place. And when these senior Democrats, the leadership in the House, who are attacking Newt Gingrich on everything else, say, 'Well, now maybe we can get together on this,' their message is: well, we've got bipartisan reform bills that would really change this system. Let's see if we can get an old boys bipartisan cover effort to make sure it doesn't happen. That's the only way to read what happened at that hearing.

Now maybe it will change. Hopefully those senior Democrats and more Democrats and more Republicans will come to understand the game is over. The American people are not gonna buy it.