The MacNeil/Lehrer Report; Political Action Committees

[Tease]

ROBERT MacNEIL [voice-over]: There are more than 3,000 of them. They gambled more than $80 million on last week's congressional elections. They are the PACs, the political action committees. Did they buy the election or help the process?

[Titles]

MacNEIL: Good evening. It's been a week today since the voters elected the members of the 98th Congress, but while the vote count is in, the final cost of their election is still being tabulated. What is known is that it cost more to elect this Congress than any in history. Contributing to the high stakes were the 3,479 political action committees, known as PACs. These interest groups represent corporations, unions, trade associations and single interest groups. Federal law permits them to give up to $10,000 to an individual candidate. Private donors may give an individual candidate only $2,000. CorporatePACs seek voluntary contributions from their employees. Union PACs collect from their members, and trade association PACs from affiliated organizations. The theory is that by pooling the money, a given PAC can have more clout than any of its members individually. Tonight, did PACs influence the results of the election, and how beholden will the new Congress be to the PACs who contributed? Jim?

JIM LEHRER: Robin, the list of candidates who received the most in PAC contributions is a list of winners. In the Senate, the top 10 PAC-money recipients all won their races: Pete Wilson, the Republican who defeated Democrat Jerry Brown in California, received the most. Republican Orrin Hatch, who retained his seat in Utah, was second; Senator Lloyd Bentsen, Democrat of Texas, was third; Senator David Durenberger, Republican of Minnesota, fourth; with Senate Minority Leader Robert Byrd of West Virginia in fifth place. All of the top 10 on the House side were incumbents, and all but one was re-elected. Democrat Philip Burton of California got the most PAC money; Republican Minority Leader Robert Michel was second; third place went to the only loser on the list, Republican John Rousselot of California. Then came Democrat Dan Rostenkowski, chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, and Democrat Jim Howard, chairman of the House Public Works and Transportation Committee.

On the giving side, the PACs handing out the most money were those of the National Association of Realtors, the American Medical Association, the United Auto Workers, the International Union of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, and the National Education Association. According to Common Cause, the total PAC money that went into last week's congressional elections was $80 million. Robin?

MacNEIL: If we continue down the list of House recipients of PAC money, we would find, at number seven, Democratic Congressman Phil Gramm of Texas. According to reports filed with the Federal Election Commission through October 13th, Congressman Gramm received $806,016 from political action committees. They range from American Physicians and Surgeons to Burger King; from Delta Airlines to Dr. Pepper; from Eli Lilly to the Fertilizer Institute. While Congressman Gramm waged a hard battle in the primaries, he ran unopposed in the general elections. He joins us tonight from Houston, Texas. Congressman, first of all, why did you need so much money?

Rep. PHIL GRAMM: Well, I had a broad base of support. I had 8,000 individual contributors. Over 1,000 PACs gave to my campaign.They gave me an opportunity to go out in a new district after redistricting and basically take the message of what my record was, what qualifications I had brought to Congress, and what I had done with those qualifications in four years.

MacNEIL: What percentage of your total campaign expenditure came from PACs?

Rep. GRAMM: I think about 30%.

MacNEIL: Did you go to them or did they come to you, all those PACs?

Rep. GRAMM: It was a combination of the two. I sent out a letter outlining what I'd run for Congress to do. I outlined my record over the four years, and I asked PACs to contribute. And from that letter I received about 1,000 PAC contributions, to the best of my recollection, Robin.

MacNEIL: Do you feel that any of them gave you money to buy influence?

Rep. GRAMM: Well, first of all, I think it's important to note that power in a political sense is a zero-sum game.PACs hadn't created power; eliminating PACs won't do away with it. What PACs have done is taken power away from other groups that have historically exerted it. They've taken power away from the powerbroker in the smoke-filled room and the labor union and the political party and away from the media. And if you believe that the fragmentation of power is a good thing, that the separation of powers promotes freedom and protects democracy, then I think you have to believe that PACs are a good thing. On the other hand, if you are supported by groups that had more power before the PAC movement, in general you opposed them.

MacNEIL: Well, come back to my question. Do you feel that any of these PACs used it knowing they were buying influence from you? They were going to get you to vote a way they wanted you to vote.

Rep. GRAMM: Well, Robin, I can't say what the motivation of 1,000 people was. I can say that when I ran in 1978 Chrysler PAC contributed to my campaign. I voted against the Chrysler bail-out.They contributed again this year.

MacNEIL: They would now consider that a bad investment, would they?

Rep. GRAMM: Well, I think if you look at what I've done on the budget, if you look at the fact that interest rates are down since the budget I authored was passed, I think they'd look at it as a good investment. In that sense I'm proud of it.

MacNEIL: What about the story in Time magazine, Congressman, that the National Automobile Dealers Association gave over $40,000 -- $5,000 to you -- to members of the House Energy and Commerce Committee to kill that rule that required car dealers to inform buyers of known defects in used cars? Did you see that as the intent of that money?

Rep. GRAMM: Well, first of all, my campaign manager, when I ran in 1978, was a Ford dealer in Fort Worth, Texas. I had been supported by auto dealers all over my district. I ran on a platform of free enterprise, and I'm sure it didn't come as any surprise to them that when we voted on giving the federal government the ability to impose on them a liability for not knowing what might be wrong with a car they sold, that I voted against it.

MacNEIL: You did vote against it?

Rep. GRAMM: I did.

MacNEIL: Was there any connection between the PAC contribution and your voting against it?

Rep. GRAMM: None whatsoever. I would have voted against it had I not been supported by auto dealers because it was a bad idea. And I don't think it came as any surprise to anybody in my district that I voted against expanding the power of government when I have campaigned against that consistently for six years now.

MacNEIL: Did you refuse money from any PAC that offered it to you?

Rep. GRAMM: I did not.

MacNEIL: Well, thank you, Congressman. Jim?

LEHRER: While much public attention centered on Congressman Gramm and others who received a lot of PAC money in the election, there was at least one candidate who got just as much publicity for doing the opposite -- refusing to accept any. He was Senator William Proxmire, Democrat from Wisconsin, who spent $145.10 on his successful re-election campaign, all of it paid out of his own pocket. Senator, first --

Sen. WILLIAM PROXMIRE: One hundred and forty-five.

LEHRER: Okay. Is that a real figure, or is that a public relations figure?

Sen. PROXMIRE: No, that's a real figure. That's a real figure. I didn't buy any media time; I didn't have any paid staff; I didn't spend any money on bumper stickers or buttons or direct mail or anything of that kind at all.

LEHRER: You were opposed, though, by a very weak candidate. Did you really need to spend any money at all?

Sen. PROXMIRE: No, I wasn't opposed by a weak candidate. No, I was opposed by a very attractive young candidate who campaigned hard. He was a state senator, very articulate young man, and fine reputation in the state senate, served there six years. And, in fact, when he ran for re-election last time he was unopposed, he was so strong. He was a good candidate. I wouldn't say he was the strongest candidate you could get; the governor of the state would have been. But he was an effective and a very respectable candidate.

LEHRER: What I'm getting at is this, Senator. Was the decision you made to just spend $145 a simple political decision that that was all it was going to take to beat this guy?

Sen. PROXMIRE: No, I made the same decision in 1976. I didn't accept any campaign contributions. That election I spent $177.But I didn't accept any campaign contributions in either case, and I did it because I can tell you this is the best job in the world, being a United States senator from Wisconsin; I just love it. You're independent because our state likes people to be independent and make up their own mind.But the important thing is having this job without any kind of obligations -- any financial obligations to any special group of any kind, some of whom are fine people, and I admire them and like them and trust them, but I don't want to be obligated to them.

LEHRER: Well, we'll get to that in a minute, but let's get back to your campaign specifically. Let's say that you had been opposed by a Mark Dayton, Minnesota, or Lewis Lehrman in New York State, or any of the other real, you know, very wealthy people who came in and spent millions and millions of dollars. Would your attitude have been different? It would have to have been different, wouldn't it?

Sen. PROXMIRE: It would have been exactly the same, only I really would have dramatized that baby. That would have been marvelous. I'd love to run against Mark Dayton without spending any money. I'll tell you, when Ingram ran against Helms in 1980, I think it was, or 1978, Helms spent something like -- was reported to have spent $7 million, and Ingram spent $300,000. Ingram blew it. He should have spent nothing. In fact, I think Durenberger would have done better if he'd spent not one single nickle and made Mark Dayton's spending the issue in the campaign.

LEHRER: Is your basic decision --

Sen. PROXMIRE: That would really dramatize it.

LEHRER: Sure. Sure. And that basically gets you a lot of attention -- I mean, that's a good, solid political decision.

Sen. PROXMIRE: It's not just a matter of getting attention, but it's a matter of people actually voting for a candidate who isn't obligated, who isn't trying to buy the election, and who is running on the basis of the merits and his own -- what he can -- his ideas and whether or not they are salable, whether or not they're right.

LEHRER: Would you never accept any money from any PAC?

Sen. PROXMIRE: Well, frankly, I've run nine times for state office, and seven of those elections I accepted contributions. I did in 1952 on. I ran for governor three times, ran for the Senate four times, and accepted contributions in those elections. And I -- at that time they didn't have anything quite like the PACs. But I accepted them. But each time with some regret. I felt that I was obligated. I felt that I did have at least an obligation to give somewhat more attention to the people that contributed than the ordinary voter.

LEHRER: What is your basic position on PACs? You heard what Congressman Gramm has just said. He says that if you believe that fragmentation of power is a good thing then you have to believe PACs are a good thing.

Sen. PROXMIRE: Oh, come on, now. No, I don't believe that for one minute. There's no question in my mind that as the head of one PAC told The Wall Street Journal, "When I contribute money to my PAC, I buy legislation." I buy legislation. Think what that means. That means that the legislation is being bought. It's not being sold on the basis of its merit; it's not being supported because it's right, but it's being bought by people that have the money to buy it.

LEHRER: Well, let's harden that question up a little bit. Are you suggesting that Congressman Gramm and your own Senate Minority Leader Robert Byrd and all the others who accepted tremendous amounts of money from PACs in this last election have in fact sold themselves?

Sen. PROXMIRE: Oh, of course not. No, not a bit. I have great respect for Phil Gramm. He's a fine congressman. I have great respect for Bob Byrd; he's my leader and I admire him, and he's going to be our leader for some time to come, I hope. No, they aren't selling it in any real sense, but there isn't any question that you have to believe in Santa Claus and the tooth fairy if you don't believe that these fellows are buying legislation in two ways. Number one, they're contributing to people who they know are going to support them, or they're contributing to people who, one way or another -- even though they're good, decent, fine people -- will feel obligated to some extent. Now, I suppose you could say in a sense that's sort of buying legislation or buying a legislator, but without demeaning the character of these people, because after all, that's the way almost everybody plays the game, the fact is that they do get -- the legislation you referred to that the National Auto Dealers had -- known defects -- would -- or the FTC required that those known defects be put on used cars. And I can't think of any reason on the face of the earth why they shouldn't be.

LEHRER: Except that they accepted PAC money?

Sen. PROXMIRE: Except that the PAC money was able to win in that case, as it has in many other cases.

LEHRER: Thank you. Robin?

MacNEIL: Now we turn to a live PAC man. He is Richard Thaxton, vice president of political affairs for the National Association of Realtors. As Jim mentioned earlier, the realtors' political action committee was the biggest PAC giver to congressional candidates this year. Mr. Thaxton, how many candidates did you give money to this year?

RICHARD THAXTON: Well, the realtors overall supported 367 candidates in the 1982 election. We supported 38 in the Senate and 329 in the House.

MacNEIL: How many of the candidates you supported won?

Mr. THAXTON: In the Senate, 25, or roughly 66% of those candidates won, and in the House, 238, or 72%.

MacNEIL: How did you pick the ones your PAC supported?

Mr. THAXTON: Well, you made a statement earlier on in the opening of the show that trade associations receive their contributions from affiliated members. That's not necessarily true. In the first slide that you had up concerning the major PAC contributors, regardless of whether they were coming from the union side or trade associations, they were all supported by individual members. We get our recommendations for contributions to members of Congress or candidates from local realtors at the local board of realtors. It goes to our state association, and finally the recommendations come to a national board of 18 trustees, and they're the ones that make the decisions.

MacNEIL: What are the criteria?

Mr. THAXTON: There are several criteria that we look at in terms of making decisions. First of all, at the local board level, in most cases the members of the local board of realtors will interview or talk to the candidates and the incumbents. On the basis of that they will pass up their feelings regarding the campaign. We take a look at the legislating/voting record of incumbent members of Congress. We ask challengers to incumbent members of Congress to fill out a questionnaire that gives us some indication of what they feel the real issues are that are of concern not only to our industry, but the entire American home-buying public. Finally, we have a group of professional -- political professionals that are involved with our membership at the local level as well as state and national level, who take a look at the winnability factors in the campaign. So we take what we like to think of as a fairly broad look at all the factors going into a campaign.

MacNEIL: What do you expect to get for contributing to a congressman or a senator in his campaign or a challenger?

Mr. THAXTON: Well, I think what we expect to get is good government. The Senator made a comment a while ago -- a couple of minutes ago about one of my colleagues supposedly making a statement about buying legislation. I don't think anybody involved in politics really thinks you can buy a United States congressman or a United States senator. I think what we are doing is supporting good legislation; good legislation that's good not only for our industry, but hopefully for all America.

MacNEIL: Senator Proxmire also said that even though you might be buying a particular congressman to vote for -- to buy legislation literally, that there was no doubt that congressmen felt more obligated to PACs and big contributors than they did to ordinary voters.

Mr. THAXTON: Well, I think you have to remember when you're talking about realtors making a contribution, you're not talking about some monolithic PAC with two or three people in a back room making decisions. You're talking about a 600,000-plus organization. You're talking about over 100,000 of those who make individual voluntary contributions. You're talking about recommendations coming from the local, grassroots level up to the national level where the decisions are made. It's not a monolithic process.

MacNEIL: You gave Congressman Gramm $5,000 for his campaign. Why did you pick him?

Mr. THAXTON: Well, because our realtors in Texas felt that what he represented, the kind of legislation he represented was best for them, best for the housing industry, and best for the home-buying American public.

MacNEIL: What's the most important piece of legislation, either that has just been before Congress or is coming up for your PAC or for your interest group?

Mr. THAXTON: Well, Robin, anybody who has been following the economy knows that high interest rates have not only been hurting realtors and homebuilders, but more importantly, we feel very strongly, have been hurting a whole generation of potential home buyers, and that is the young people who are coming into the home-buying market for the first time. And that has a tremendous impact not only on realtors, obviously, who are trying to sell real estate and make a living that way, but on one of the basic fibers of our society. So we're interested in any kind of legislation that can get interest rates down, that will deal with getting the deficit down in the federal government, and we support those members of Congress who indicate that share that same basic approach to government.

MacNEIL: Well, thank you. Jim?

LEHRER: Probably the major critic of political action committees and their money has been Common Cause, the Washington-based lobbying organization. Its vice president for program operations and chief lobbyist is Ann McBride. What's your objection to PACs, Ms. McBride?

ANN McBRIDE: PACs really play a very negative role in the political process.

LEHRER: In what way?

Ms. McBRIDE: What you have are political action committees that get together and have an inordinate influence through money on legislation, both in the election process -- if you look, for example, at the list of top recipients, PAC money is skewed toward incumbents. But more important is the impact that PAC money has on legislation following the election. In between elections. It really does. It's interesting that Dick says that his PAC wants good government. But if you look at what's been said by very knowledgeable members of the House and Senate, Senator Robert Dole, chairman of the Senate Finance Committee says, "When these political action committees give money they expect something in return other than good government." It's making it much more difficult to legislate. We may reach a point where everybody is buying something with PAC money; we can't get anything done. So what you have is a system in which money is playing an inordinate role, and you can see it time and time again in votes, and it really is drowning out the voice of the public interest.

LEHRER: Well, you heard what Congressman Gramm says, though. He says just the opposite. He says that what it is doing is taking power away from people who have been exercising it in the back rooms and giving it to everybody.

Ms. McBRIDE: Well, I think that I would certainly not agree with this. When you have $800,000 in PAC money being given; five, 10 thousand in a shot from an individual PAC; many interest group PACs combining to give enormous sums of money, what it does is concentrate power on particular areas. For instance, who is going to compete with the realtors and their enormous amount of PAC money on housing policy? There is no one. It is very narrowly focused money which paralyzes the process.

LEHRER: Well, let's take -- Mr. Thaxton just ran through it with Robin, how they make their decisions on who gets their money. It starts at the grassroots level and works up and all that. What's wrong with that?

Ms. McBRIDE: Well, first of all, PAC money is not simply an aggregate of all the individual members. When PAC money comes together, when PAC managers distribute it, it does not reflect just the broad views of individuals. It changes its character, and it really becomes a part of a lobbying strategy on a very narrow series of issues, and that power being exercised, and the obligation of Senator Proxmire who has been in the Senate for a long time -- the obligation it imposes on those members of Congress is unhealthy.

LEHRER: And you don't feel that there's any way for a member of Congress to escape that obligation? I mean, you think that once a member of Congress accepts money from Mr. Thaxton or any other PAC, that he or she is obligated, every time Thaxton calls, to jump?

Ms. McBRIDE: Let me just say that, first of all, obviously there are cases when individual members vote against the PACs who gave them money. But let's look at statistics. Look, for example, at hospital cost containment: failed in the House of Representatives. You look at the money. The AMA gave four times as much to those who opposed hospital cost containment than the other side. Let's look at the used car rule, which someone called the Used Congress rule. When you look at that, those who voted with the auto dealers received five times as much money as those who voted the other way. Sure, there's the exception. Sure, there is the member of Congress who votes against PACs. But cumulatively I just think it's not even open to debate that PAC money is exercising enormous and, I believe, negative power in Congress.

LEHRER: Thank you. Robin?

MacNEIL: Congressman Gramm, what do you say to that?

Rep. GRAMM: Well, first of all, I think we're hearing from someone who I'm sure is very sincere, but who has a big vested interest. After all, who sets Common Cause's policy? Who are they accountable to? It is groups like Common Cause who have used the media who have lost power to the PACs, and I don't see that unhealthy. Let me just rattle off a few examples here. I noticed when the study was done the other day of members of Congress who were supporting exempting the professions from the Federal Trade Commission jurisdiction that they listed members and what they'd received from all the professional PACs. I received more money from the professional PACs than any member of Congress. I opposed exempting them from the FTC, but yet Congress Watch, in making their list, leaves my name off. Why? Because it violates the principle they're trying to establish, and if you leave off exceptions you can make any principle you want.

MacNEIL: Ms. McBride, why did Congress Watch leave his name off?

Ms. McBRIDE: I don't know; I don't work for Congress Watch. But I think that you really can see in the cumulative impact, in the questions of hospital cost containment, in the questions of the FTC rule, in a whole variety of issues you see the impact of PAC money; you see it in statistics and you see it in a real negative impact on the process. I can't answer for Congress Watch.

MacNEIL: Congressman Gramm, let's take that example of the hospital cost containment one. And the AMA, Ms. McBride says, gave four times as much to candidates who voted against that bill than to candidates -- people who voted for it. How did you vote? Did you get AMA money?

Rep. GRAMM: I voted against it. I had done consulting work for the Public Health Service for seven years prior to coming to Congress. I had a clear record in opposition to it. I had written a book in opposition to it. David Stockman and I wrote a monograph in leading the debate. It was a bad idea. It would not have worked. Common Cause believes it's a good idea. They go out and use the media to promote people that agree with them. PACs have a right to support people who agree with them.

MacNEIL: Mr. Thaxton, what about Ms. McBride's point that you can't claim that this money is all coming up as pure grassroots money because when it gets put together it changes its character and becomes focused as part of particular lobbying strategy for particular legislation?

Mr. THAXTON: Well, I just would say one thing. First of all, I wish Ann had the opportunity to sit in on some meetings of our board of trustees, which are 18 realtors who are volunteers from around the country who make these decisions. Often times we think there is really no kind of strategy coming out there when it comes to campaign contributions. But let me re-emphasize the point I made before, that the process is democratic, that realtors who are voluntarily making those contributions at the local board-of-real-estate level, as individual realtors and members of this association, voluntarily making those contributions, their voice gets heard. It's their recommendations that are acted upon, not the recommendations of a half a dozen lobbyists sitting there putting together, if you will, legislative strategy.

MacNEIL: Senator Proxmire, do you think that the laws governing PACs should be changed?

Sen. PROXMIRE: Yes, I do. I think they ought to be changed in a couple of ways. I think in the first place we ought to have a limit on the amount of PAC contributions any one member can receive. We have legislation that's pending to do that. And then I think that we ought to try our best to provide for a substitution for this. I think public financing is the way of providing an opportunity for us to have far more equality.We have that in Wisconsin. It works extremely well.Both candidates for governor, for example, in this last election took public financing. The overwhelming majority of candidates for the state senate and state assembly also in Wisconsin did exactly the same thing. Now, with this kind of contribution you have to have -- you have to have private contributions; you can accept some private contributions, but what it does is to reduce the inordinate influence of special interests, special industry influence or special labor influence.

MacNEIL: Let me get a final word on that from Congressman Gramm. What do you think about limiting the amount PACs can give and going for public financing of congressional elections, Congressman?

Rep. GRAMM: Well, I'm opposed to public financing. I don't think we ought to take people's tax money to pay for individuals to run for Congress. If we're going to limit PAC contributions I think we've got to limit the activities of other people that affect the election process. Because, again, we're not taking political power away from the PACs. We're simply transferring that power to somebody else. We're not destroying it. I think that's the key point that is missed in most of the debate.

MacNEIL: Okay. We have to leave it there. Thank you for joining us from Houston, Congressman. Senator Proxmire, Ms. McBride and Mr. Thaxton, thank you for joining us in Washington. Good night, Jim.

LEHRER: Good night, Robin.

MacNEIL: That's all for tonight. We will be back tomorrow night. I'm Robert MacNeil. Good night.