The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer

MR. LEHRER: Good evening. I'm Jim Lehrer. On the NewsHour tonight, President Clinton visits Japan, three analysts set the stage [Focus - Pacific Power]; the firing continues on both sides of the Lebanon-Israel border, we have two reports [Focus - Combat Zone]; limits on campaign spending go before the Supreme Court, Kwame Holman and Stuart Taylor report [Focus - Spending Limits?]; it's April 15th, IRS Commissioner Margaret Richardson is here for a Newsmaker interview [Newsmaker], and the 100th running of the Boston marathon, as seen by former champion Bill Rodgers [Finally - Marathon Man]. It all follows our summary of the news this Monday.NEWS SUMMARY

MR. LEHRER: Israeli fighter planes and artillery pounded Hezbollah guerrilla targets in Lebanon today. A power station outside the Lebanon capital of Beirut was hit. More than 30 Lebanese civilians and one Israeli soldier have been killed so far in the attacks that began five days ago. Some 130 people have been injured, 400,000 have fled Beirut. Going the other way, more Hezbollah rockets were also fired today at various targets in Northern Israel. At least eight Israeli casualties have been reported. We'll have more on this fighting later in the program. In Japan today, the U.S. agreed to further scale back its military bases on Okinawa. Friday, it was announced a Marine air base would close. Added today was the promise to give back 20 percent of the land in Okinawa to local landowners, but the number of American service personnel in the area will remain the same. President Clinton arrived in South Korea tonight on the first leg of his trip to Asia. Officials traveling with the President said he will propose new four-way peace talks involving North and South Korea, China, and the Supreme Court. Mr. Clinton will seek approval for the idea from South Korea's president, Kim Young Sam. The President flies to Japan tomorrow and we'll have more on the President's visit right after this News Summary. In Liberia today, the fighting and the looting continued. American officials ended their full- scale evacuation of foreign citizens from Monrovia, but they said air lifts would resume when necessary. Nearly 2,000 foreigners, including 306 Americans, have been evacuated since the seven-year- old civil war reignited ten days ago. A State Department Spokesman in Washington said the U.S. interest in Liberia remains strong.

STATE DEPARTMENT SPOKESMAN: In this sort of intramural conflict there has to be on the part of the Liberians, themselves, a, a willingness expressed, actual impetus toward, toward peace, and we simply haven't seen enough of it, I don't believe, for the Supreme Court to do anything more than continue our bedrock diplomacy, which is calling on them to get back to a cease-fire. But I think for the time being the fact that we're staying in a very dangerous situation is one strong measure of our interest and our ties to that nation.

MR. LEHRER: Freed American slaves established Liberia in the early 1800's. In Washington, the House also debated a constitutional amendment that would make it harder to raise taxes. The Republican proposal would require a 2/3 vote in Congress on any tax increase. A 2/3 vote is also needed to pass the amendment, and such a margin is not expected. Democrats accuse the Republicans of playing April 15th politics. We'll have an April 15th talk with IRS Commissioner Margaret Richardson later in the program. Also in Congress today, House and Senate Republicans reached agreement on a new version of an anti-terrorism bill. They incorporated some suggestions from the administration into a compromise. The new bill would ban fund-raising in the Supreme Court by foreign groups linked to terrorism. It would also expedite the deportation of known terrorists.

REP. BOB BARR, [R] Georgia: This may not look like a bullet, but it is. This piece of legislation is a silver bullet that will strike at the heart of terrorism in America. It will provide credibility to our judicial system that has lost a great deal of credibility over the last generation because of our inability as a society to come to grips with the tools that our prosecutors, that our judges, that our prison officials, and most importantly that our citizens need and demand.

MR. LEHRER: But some Democrats said the bill was flawed because it restricts the use of wire taps, among other things.

REP. CHARLES SCHUMER, [D] New York: This bill is not bad as far as it goes, but none of us should be too proud of the legislation. It got mired in the worst kind of special interest politics. We got a bit of the bill we wanted, some of the bill we wanted. But the NRA and the gun lobby were granted all of their wishes.

MR. LEHRER: Republican leaders in both the House and Senate say they expect to pass the bill before the end of the week. Friday is the first anniversary of the Oklahoma City bombing. The U.S. Supreme Court heard arguments today on campaign spending. The case will determine if limits can be set on spending by political parties. Now, federal law limits state party campaign contributions to $5,000 for each candidate. The case comes from a dispute between the Colorado Republican Party and the Federal Election Commission. The court is expected to rule by July. We'll have more on this story later in the program. And in Boston today, there was the 100th running of the Boston marathon. Moses Tanui of Kenya won the men's race. Germany's Uta Pippig took the women's title for the third straight year. The Boston is the world's oldest marathon race. We'll talk to marathon runner Bill Rodgers about it at the end of the program tonight. Between now and then, President Clinton's Japan trip, Middle East fighting, campaign spending, and the Internal Revenue Service commissioner. FOCUS - PACIFIC POWER

MR. LEHRER: President Clinton's mission to Asia is first tonight. Elizabeth Farnsworth has the story.

MS. FARNSWORTH: As President Clinton left the White House last night, top administration officials were stressing that this trip to South Korea and Japan would be different from previous Asian summits. Security and defense would be the main issues, not the trade disputes that have bedeviled U.S.-Japanese relations since the 1970's. On Friday, the President and top economic officials were saying that immense progress had been made in opening Japanese markets to U.S. exports.

PRESIDENT CLINTON: Today, exports to Japan support more than 800,000 good-paying American jobs, including 150,000 new ones since 1992.

MS. FARNSWORTH: The focus on security, rather than trade, is partly a result of recent events in Korea and China. Over the past two weeks, North Korea has sent troops into the demilitarized zone dividing the Korean Peninsula and has said it would not longer abide by the 1953 armistice that ended the Korean War. The United States has 36,000 troops stationed in South Korea. They would be on the front line in case of a North Korean invasion of the South. President Clinton arrived in South Korea this afternoon. He will meet with President Kim Young Sam later this evening and is expected to offer reassurance that American troops remain committed to defending the South against any incursions from the North. The other recent crisis in East Asia, China's threats against Taiwan, has cooled since elections on that island March 23rd. To forestall any further moves towards Taiwanese independence, China carried out military exercises in the Taiwan Strait over a period of weeks last month. In response, the United States deployed two aircraft areas in the area. Dealing with China and the positioning of U.S. forces in Asia will be key topics when President Clinton reaches Japan on Tuesday. Just today, new details were released of an agreement signed Friday changing the deployment of some of the 47,000 American troops in Japan and especially in Okinawa. The troop issue has become more contentious in Japanese politics since the abduction and rape of a 13 year old Okinawan girl by three American servicemen last September. Large demonstrations have called for an end to the U.S./Japan security treaty. But the Japanese government of Premier Ryutaro Hashimoto instead worked out arrangements for redeploying some American troops and shutting down some military facilities on Okinawa. In all, Okinawa will get back about 20 percent of the land used by the U.S. for training and other operations.

MS. FARNSWORTH: Now we get three perspectives on the President's trip to Asia and U.S. policy in that region. Ayako Doi is a journal and editor of "Japan Digest," a daily summary report of Japanese news published in Virginia. Joseph Nye is the former assistant secretary of defense in the Clinton administration. He is now dean of the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University. He joins us from Boston. And Chalmers Johnson is an author and president of the Japan Policy Research Institute. He joins us from San Diego. Thank you all for being with us. Joseph Nye, you heard in the News Summary, and I will read you a little bit of this wire, we just have unconfirmed reports from both Reuters and AP that President Clinton will propose unconditional peace talks between North and South Korea with the United States and China as participants. Does this surprise you? Is this something that began under your watch at the Defense Department?

JOSEPH NYE, Former Pentagon Official: [Boston] I think it's a good idea. The difficulty will be to see whether the North Koreans will participate. They've been trying to break us away from the South Koreans, and in that sense, they've resisted things that include the South Koreans on an equal basis. So I think it's a good proposal, but it remains to be seen whether the North will actually accept it.

MS. FARNSWORTH: What about the South Koreans?

MR. NYE: I think the South Koreans are willing to have a dialogue on peace as long as they're treated coequally. What they're not willing to do is have a dialogue that the North Koreans initiate which is between the North and the U.S. only. And that's been the tactic that North Korea has been trying.

MS. FARNSWORTH: Chalmers Johnson, what do you think? And do you think? And do you think that the recent incursions into the demilitarized zone are about, were caused by North Korea's desire to deal directly with the United States, which is what some people say?

CHALMERS JOHNSON, Japan Police Research Institute: [San Diego] The North Koreans have been trying to deal with this for some length of time, and so far, their record of willingness to negotiate is actually quite good ever since Jimmy Carter's visit to the North two years ago. I believe that finally we woke up that they want to negotiate and that we quit stonewalling; therefore, I very much welcome the President's initiate. I think it should have come at least a couple of years ago.

MS. FARNSWORTH: Do you agree with Joseph Nye, that it's possible the North won't accept this, though, because they don't want to sit with the South Koreans and negotiate this peace?

MR. JOHNSON: That's possible, but I think the thing that has been achieved in this proposal is to bring in China and that China very likely might put important pressure on Pyongyang to join this. I believe that, that the North needs these negotiations and that the question of South Korea's presence may turn out to be less significant than we have feared.

MS. FARNSWORTH: This would be a rather historic event.

MR. JOHNSON: It would be a breakthrough. It would be of tremendous importance. I'm glad to see that the President has taken this initiative.

MS. FARNSWORTH: Ayako Doi, how seriously was the, the North Korean--were the North Koreans incursions into the DMZ and the other problems of recent weeks taken in Japan? Anything that happens between North and South Korea would involve the U.S. military, which has bases in Japan, so it would involve Japan too.

AYAKO DOI, Japan Digest: Well, I don't think North Korea was ever taken as a direct military threat to Japan. But anything that happens on the peninsula that's so near to Japan, of course, is a concern of Japanese people and the big question has been if something happens in Korean Peninsula, what will Japanese forces do to aid the American operation, or joint American-South Korean operation? And the consensus--well, I wouldn't say the consensus but the present government interpretation of the things is that Japanese cannot come to the aid of the U.S. forces if it involves a real crisis that does not involve directly Japan, attack on Japan.

MS. FARNSWORTH: Actually, this gets us into the whole question of the U.S.-Japan security alliance, and I wanted to ask you, Joseph Nye, speaking of historic agreements, these recent agreements in Japan that were announced Friday and then some of the details were released today, it does appear that the U.S. and Japan are working out ways to cooperate at least in peacekeeping and perhaps preparing the way to cooperate, if there is trouble in, in Asia, and this has always been an issue because of Japan's constitution, which forbids most Japanese military activity. Do you see this as a--what's happening right now as being very important?

MR. NYE: I think this is extremely important. Some years ago, Prime Minister Nakasone called Japan an unsinkable aircraft carrier. And certainly the U.S. forward presence in East Asia is welcomed by all countries in the region. The fact that this relationship is being reaffirmed, indeed, that President Clinton and Prime Minister Hashimoto are going to sign a joint security declaration saying that this is the basis for stability in East Asia after the Cold War, is indeed a great occasion and of primary significance for the period after the Cold War.

MS. FARNSWORTH: Make the case for us. Why are U.S. troops necessary after the Cold War and Japan and Korea?

MR. NYE: Well, unlike Europe, where you'll find that there are a lot of institutions such as the European Union and so forth, in East Asia, there is no glue that holds these countries together, and there are a great many historical disputes which could flame up or flare up even though the ideological divisions, the Cold War, are over. The fact that the Americans is the largest power in the world are willing to sort of hold the reins to keep order is profoundly important to economic growth in East Asia. Indeed, I've sometimes said that security is like oxygen. You don't need it--notice it until you begin to lose it. In that sense, the American presence is the oxygen that keeps the East Asian economic miracle flourishing, and that's directly beneficial to the United States, as the President said in the clip you heard earlier.

MS. FARNSWORTH: Chalmers Johnson, what do you think about that? Are U.S. troops still necessary in Japan?

MR. JOHNSON: I'm enormously skeptical of all that has been going on, that is to say the promise Futenma Marine Corps Air Station or the--

MS. FARNSWORTH: On Okinawa.

MR. JOHNSON: Yeah. On Okinawa, or the Northern territories to the island. These are the same promise that was made 23 years ago about the, the Nahad Docks. We claim that we will return things only if the Japanese will make alternative areas available, knowing that they're really not there. My feeling is that a breakthrough would mean withdraw the Third Marine Division. We do not need ground forces in East Asia. We need the Navy. It is--America's real capacity is, is the Seventh Fleet, is the ability to project power into the Taiwan Straits, into the South China Sea, into the sea lanes of Southeast Asia. We've threatened the continued existence of the Navy by having the ground forces there since they may lead to further incidents that will ultimately cause the Japanese to throw us out, as the Philippines did four years ago over our biggest base, biggest Naval base at Subic Bay. So, so far, it would be, I would like to believe that they are serious this time, but Futenma comes back five to seven years from now. That's ample time for the President, the ambassador, the Secretary of Defense, and Mr. Hashimoto all to have gone onto new jobs.

MS. FARNSWORTH: Why don't we need U.S. military ground forces in Japan or in Asia?

MR. JOHNSON: The--our official military doctrine right now, the Weinberger doctrine, says that will not use force except when we can see the end game. It was one of the issues that came up so significantly over the sending of troops to, to Bosnia. We are not going to use ground forces in any sort of contest with China. In the case of Korea, they're simply not needed, i.e., Korea today is defended by a 650,000-man army. Jiang Zemin, the president of China, made a state visit to Korea last November, probably greater for South Korea than, than anything the Americans are doing. Korea is today 20 times richer and twice as large as North Korea. North Korea is a failed Communist regime, an East Asian Romania, but the greatest real danger is its collapse, not its military adventurism. Our role there is to, is to provide nuclear defense. That is done from the Seventh Fleet. That's what should be emphasized in our policies. I'm afraid the Marines remain there simply because of inertia, vested interests in the military, and that they should be withdrawn. I'm afraid that these are just palliative measures that have been announced this far.

MS. FARNSWORTH: What do you think Ayako Doi, palliative measures, or will the closing of a major Marine air station in, in Okinawa remove some of the heat from the demonstrations and the demands for a greatly reduced U.S. presence in Japan?

MS. DOI: Well, at least for now. I mean, this will get the successful summit meeting going on okay this week. Nobody knows what will happen, whether it will really happen, or what it will do later on. I think--I'm not much of a military expert to say what kind or what level forces are needed to, to defend Japan or keep the stability of the region, but one of the things that ticked off the Okinawan people last Fall, after the rape and before President Clinton's cancelled visit to Japan in November was that, was the report that those two leaders were going to confirm that U.S. forces will remain at 100,000 troop level in Asia and 47,000 of them in Japan for the next 20 years. And that greatly upset the Okinawan people, and the rest of Japan as a result was made aware of the discontent of the Okinawan people of having to bear their- -the burden of having to--having so many bases in their, their island, and, um, I think the good thing about the rape and China- Taiwan crisis is that it finally made the Japanese people--forced the Japanese people to think what are they going to do themselves, along with the U.S. forces under the security treaty to defend Japan and keep the stability of the region. And that's the question that the Japanese have never had to ask themselves during the Cold War.

MS. FARNSWORTH: You mean, what would they be willing to do by themselves?

MS. DOI: Right.

MS. FARNSWORTH: If the U.S. weren't there, or are they facing asking the U.S. to leave eventually?

MS. DOI: Well, I don't think--I think very few Japanese would say, leave, the United States, right now. Umm, they don't have the alternative yet. They haven't figured out what, what they would like to do. I think the most important thing about this Futenma agreement is that having, having had to ask the U.S. to give up their important Marine base, at least the Pentagon thought that it was a very important base--nobody thought that it was coming back so soon, but having forced the Americans to give it up, the Japanese government had put in in this agreement, in the same agreement that they will consider what, what facilities they can offer to facilitate the U.S. operation in time of crisis. And that's a--that's a very new thing.

MS. FARNSWORTH: Just now we only have a minute left. Can you respond to Chalmers Johnson's call to get ground troops out of Japan?

MR. NYE: Well, as long as North Korea has 1.1 million men, 2/3 of them right along the demilitarized zone, we have a clear and present danger. And when we force sized for that area, we just that we needed 100,000 troops forward based, and North Korea had a lot to do with it. They don't need to stay there 20 years. Nobody ever said the would stay 20 years. What we need in the short run is enough troops to counter the North Korean threat, and in the longer-term, enough presence to provide that sense of security and stability throughout the region. And the changes that have just been announced are going to make that possible. Those are real changes, not phony changes.

MS. FARNSWORTH: Thank you all very much.

MR. LEHRER: Still to come on the NewsHour tonight, the fighting in the Middle East, political party spending, the IRS chief, and the Boston marathon. FOCUS - COMBAT ZONE

MR. LEHRER: Now the fighting in the Middle East. We have two updates from Israel and Lebanon, beginning with this report from Alex Thompson of Independent Television News.

ALEX THOMPSON, ITN: Anti-aircraft defenses opening fire as Beirut comes under Israeli air attack once more, the fourth time it's happened since Thursday. Two Apache assault helicopters rocketed the capital's southern Hezbollah-controlled suburbs. Officially, the Israelis have now killed twenty-seven civilians, injured more than a hundred. Government and United Nations have no evidence of any Hezbollah soldiers being hit. There were certainly none here, and the Israelis knew that when they rocketed an electricity station in Christian East Beirut. The widening of targets continues, all part of the strategy to increase pressure on the Lebanese government. Across the South, steady shelling all day long in towns like Nabatir and Tyre. The Israelis said another seven villages must be evacuated on top of the forty-eight already targeted. About 7,000 refugees are sheltering in UN bases like this one in the southern city of Tyre. They think they're safe here from shelling. Everyone we spoke to says they want only their land back, not the destruction of Israel, itself.

UNIDENTIFIED MAN: If one take your land, what do you do? If one take your house, what do you do? You kill him or not. You say to him go from your home, we want our land. We want to live like--like a Libyan man, like gentleman, like English.

ALEX THOMPSON: Hezbollah is the critical factor. Its members were out in Beirut this morning collecting cash donations. Fifty-five would-be suicide bombers parade and check their explosive belts on a Hezbollah propaganda video released last night. The old dispute, being addressed in the ancient way by warfare.

GABY RADO, ITN: By this morning, the Israeli defense forces deployed on high ground above the Lebanese border had fired more than 5,000 shells at Hezbollah targets. In fact, the artillery bombardment in this offensive, code-named Operation Grapes of Wrath, is less intensive than in previous Israeli attacks on Lebanese territory, but say the army new laser technology makes it more accurate. That claim can't be verified, and it's known Hezbollah rocket launchers are easily moved around on trucks and even on the backs of animals.

COL. RAANAN GISSIN, Israeli Defense Force: What we want is to separate between the population and Hezbollah, and we want to ensure that Hezbollah does not use again in any other form the area as a staging ground to launch Katyusha rockets against our northern border settlement. In order for that to be accomplished, there has to be unfortunately some inconvenience to the local population. The fact that they had to leave their houses is only temporary.

GABY RADO: The presence of the Israeli army inside a strip of South Lebanon, the security zone, is a reminder that Israel was in the past prepared to occupy territory to protect is northern border. But the invasion of 1982 took place under a right-wing government, and Labor is unlikely to commit ground troops this time. It is, however, now forced to explain how its offensive is consistent with the peace process.

URI SAVIR, Israeli Foreign Ministry: I know that it sounds a paradox, contradiction that you have military activity when you fight for peace. But there is sometimes no other way to fight the enemies of peace, and you need the courage of your conviction to negotiate for peace, to compromise with those who are your allies in peace. But the same courage is needed to fight those who will do everything without scruples and inhibitions to destroy the hope for peace.

GABY RADO: The plain of Northern Galilee, a sliver of land jutting into Lebanon, is the part of Israel most vulnerable to Hezbollah attacks. This Katyusha rocket landing harmlessly in fields above the village of Metulah. The Israelis continue to strike back with artillery and aerial attacks, but as each day of the offensive passes, doubts grow as to how effectively the military and political threat from Hezbollah can be removed. FOCUS - SPENDING LIMITS?

MR. LEHRER: Now, the U.S. Supreme Court hears the Colorado campaign finance case. We begin with this backgrounder by Kwame Holman.

KWAME HOLMAN: Gail Norton, Colorado's Republican attorney general, is busy these days campaigning in Denver and elsewhere around the state in hopes of replacing retiring Senator Hank Brown. Norton's Republican primary opponent is Eastern Colorado Congressman Wayne Allard. Whichever of them wins the August primary will look to the state Republican Party to help fund the fall campaign, and that funding could be increased substantially this election year if the two major political parties have their way. Currently, all candidates in this country for Congress or the Presidency must adhere to contribution and spending limits set by the Federal Election Commission. For instance, contributors may give a maximum of $1,000 per election to a candidate, $5,000 to a state political party, and $20,000 to a national political party. But the constitutionality of the FEC limits now is being called into question, thanks to a spending dispute that erupted between two other Colorado Senate candidates a decade ago. Ten years ago, Republican Ken Kramer was campaigning with the help of President Ronald Reagan, hoping to defeat Democrat Tim Wirth. Wirth, then a popular Congressman, became the target of a $15,000 radio ad campaign paid for not by Kramer but by the Colorado Republican Party. The Colorado Democratic Party filed a complaint with the FEC that the Republicans radio buy put them over their $103,000 spending limit set by an FEC formula, but Washington lawyer Jan Baran, who represents the Colorado Republican Party, says the party's ad fell outside FEC limits.

JAN BARAN, Republican Attorney: Up to that time, a belief that the only type of advertising that would be covered by the limit would be advertising that did two things: one, mention a candidate by name, and secondly, conveyed what the law calls a message of express advocacy, and that means that the message had to contain the words that expressly advocated either the election or defeat of a clearly identified candidate.

MR. HOLMAN: Here's the ad as it was heard 10 years ago.

AD SPOKESPERSON: Tim Wirth said he's for a strong defense and a balanced budget. But according to his record, Tim Wirth voted against every major new weapon system in the last five years, and he voted against the balanced budget amendment. Tim Wirth has a right to run for the Senate, but he doesn't have a right to change the facts.

MR. HOLMAN: Tim Wirth won the election, but the FEC upheld the complaint, ruing the radio ad was, indeed political speech subject to FEC limits. In doing so, Baran suggests the FEC changed the rules in the middle of the game.

JAN BARAN: What the Federal Election Commission did in this case is to say, well, that's really not standard, we're going to say that if you sent out a message that simply contains what it calls an electioneering message, then that expense counts toward the limit.

MR. HOLMAN: And even if the Colorado Republican Party did overspend in 1986, Baran argues the spending limits the FEC sets for state parties are inadequate for modern day politics.

JAN BARAN: The way this limit works is that it doesn't allow the Colorado Republican Party, for example, to pay the postage on one letter to just every Republican in the state of Colorado advocating the election of a candidate.

MR. HOLMAN: So today, Jan Baran, the Colorado Republican Party, and both major national political parties are on the same side in a case before the Supreme Court.

JAN BARAN: This is the core of the First Amendment and the government rarely, if ever, is able to dictate how much political speech anyone, including a political party or perhaps especially a political party may engage in.

MR. HOLMAN: But Ann McBride of the government watchdog group Common Cause argues the Supreme Court already struck the right balance between free speech and the federal government's interest in the landmark 1976 case known as Buckley Vs. Vallejo.

ANN McBRIDE, Common Cause: Speech can be limited when there is a compelling state interest and in this case, in the campaign finance area, the compelling state interest was corruption or the appearance of corruption. We believe what's been proposed in this case would clearly create corruption, the appearance of corruption, and that there is a compelling state interest.

MR. HOLMAN: McBride says abolishing the state party spending limit would create a campaign financing loophole. She says individual donors could funnel unlimited $20,000 contributions, for instance, to the national party, which could pass the money along to the state party, which then could dedicate that money to a particular candidate.

ANN McBRIDE: A $20,000 contribution run through the political party in Colorado has the same corrupting impact as a direct contribution to that candidate.

JAN BARAN: This is a very highly regulated process, and it's subject to many checks and balances, including public disclosure, to ensure that we preserve the integrity of our electoral process and our campaign finance system.

MR. HOLMAN: But how much or how little that system will be changed as result of the Colorado case now is up to the nine justices of the court. A decision is expected this summer.

MR. LEHRER: And for more on the case and today's arguments here now is NewsHour regular Stuart Taylor, correspondent for the "American Lawyer" and "Legal Times." Stuart, first of all, tell us briefly how it got to the Supreme Court. We know where it began in Colorado. How did it get here today?

STUART TAYLOR, The American Lawyer: Democrats in Colorado complained that the ad violated the existing election law. The Federal Election Commission took up that complaint, agreed with it, and sued, trying to get a civil penalty against the Colorado Republicans. The Federal Election Commission lost that case in the district court. They won it in the appeals court. The appeals court upheld their view of the restriction, and now the Colorado Republican Party, supported by a lot of other groups, including the National Republican Party and more lukewarm by the National Democratic Party are pushing now in the Supreme Court not only to overrule the lower court decision but to knock a very large hole in the existing web of federal campaign expenditure restrictions.

MR. LEHRER: So there are two ways to look at this case, are there not? I mean, there is the very narrow thing about what happened in Colorado. Now, is anybody arguing that? Do they want--the national parties both want this broader in--tell us, explain the differences and, and what the parties actually want the Supreme Court to do.

MR. TAYLOR: The Republican Party wants it to do a little more than the Democratic Party does. The Republican Party wants to go well beyond saying this particular radio spot against Tim, Tim Wirth, should have been upheld. They want the court to hold unconstitutional the provision of the Federal Election campaign laws that bars political parties from spending unlimited funds on their own candidate. So for example, if they win and win big, the Republican Party in this fall's election and the Democratic Party would be able to spend as much money as they can raise on behalf of their own Presidential candidates on top of the federal funding that the candidates get. Under existing law, they're very strictly limited in what they can spend to a few cents per voter.

MR. LEHRER: And that would apply to all--I mean, if the Supreme Court should rule in that way, that would apply to all state parties, right?

MR. TAYLOR: Yes. It would apply to all political parties across the board, state, local in terms of supporting federal candidates. And now the purpose of the provision in the law, the reason there's a cap on that, is that Congress thought that spending by political parties, unlimited spending on behalf of candidates, had a potential for corrupting the process, in part because parties can receive very large contributions, up to $20,000 a year, from moneyed individuals. Candidates cannot receive contributions that large. And one concern is that the parties would act as conduits so that the big contributor who wants to influence the elected official, instead of giving him $20,000 directly, which the law forbids, to just give it to the party. The party could spend it on his election, and you'd end up in the same place.

MR. LEHRER: And the party could theoretically under that formula give an individual candidate $1/2 million, right? I mean, you could get a bunch of $20,000 together.

MR. TAYLOR: Yes.

MR. LEHRER: And that would, would--and the theory there is that that would corrupt--how would that corrupt the candidate? What's the theory as to how that would corrupt the candidate?

MR. TAYLOR: Well, there are two theories as to how it would corrupt the candidate. The one, the one that was pushed by Solicitor General Drew Days today was sort of, well, you remember Tamany Hall and the Teapot Dome scandal when political parties can be corrupting institutions, and if the candidate is too beholden to his own party, that can be corrupting. The--the stronger version of the argument which is made by groups like Common Cause is that the individual donors who make the money will exercise influence over candidates, quasi-bribery type influence, by giving--whether they give them the money directly, or whether they give it to them indirectly, and the party can effectuate that by spending an unlimited amount on the candidate. Now, of course, the other side of the argument is that the political party is the quintessential free speech, free politics organ of American democracy and that parties being able to spend money to elect candidates is a good thing, not a bad thing.

MR. LEHRER: Because they're speaking for a group of people who share their views.

MR. TAYLOR: That's correct.

MR. LEHRER: That's the way the argument goes. And the--but the argument that was made today in--who made--who made the argument on the other side--in other words, the free speech argument? That's the basic argument underlying the political party's side, right?

MR. TAYLOR: Right. Jan Baran, who we just saw arguing the case, also argued it in the Supreme Court. And his fundamental point to the Supreme Court is that this is a very important form of free speech, the ability of a party to, to try and elect its own nominees, and that it shouldn't be restricted unduly by the courts, and his claim is that it has not in the past been restricted because of the Supreme--because the Federal Election Commission didn't used to construe the law quite the same way it does not.

MR. LEHRER: Is it possible to read, as you sometimes are able to, Stuart, the--what--where the Justices were leaning, based on their reactions and their questions for that?

MR. TAYLOR: You could read one or two of them, but you couldn't read all of them. Justice Antonin Scalia, who has always been very hostile to campaign funding restrictions and in favor of freedom to spend money, made it clear today that he wants to strike this restriction down and strike it down big time. A couple of justices who the other side might have hoped would be more sympathetic to them, Justice Breyer and Justice Souter, both asked Solicitor General Days, what's wrong with party discipline, what's wrong with party government? Parties are supposed to be a good thing. And I'm not sure that he had a very convincing answer for them, because he was restricting himself to the thesis that parties, themselves, are corrupting and wasn't making the more indirect argument that some other groups have made that you don't focus on the party, focus on the people who are giving the money to the party, and passing it through to try and get--to get favors from the people the party's going to elect.

MR. LEHRER: It's--if the court decides to go the broad route on this, and not just resolve whether or not Tim Wirth's situation was up or down, whether the Republican Party did the right or wrong thing, this could have enormous impact, could it not, if it comes- -if it makes--if it gives a decision by July, is it supposed to?

MR. TAYLOR: It could have a very large impact, because parties can raise an awful lot of money, and in this election year, the Republicans seem to be able to raise more money than the Democrats, and if the court rules in a big broad sweeping way that parties can spend money, as much money as they want for candidates, I can imagine it might help the Republicans this year. Some other year it might help the Democrats.

MR. LEHRER: Yeah. But it would have an enormous effect on the election one way or another, would it not?

MR. TAYLOR: I--

MR. LEHRER: No, no. I don't mean on the outcome of the elections. I don't mean that, but just on the way money is raised and political campaigns.

MR. TAYLOR: Yes, because then you could--the traditional big donor could say, well, I can give my $20,000 to the party, and then they can take it right out and spend it on the guy we want them to spend it on. Now, there's another restriction in the law that supposedly limits the big donor's ability to say here's how I want you to spend the money, but that's very hard to enforce.

MR. LEHRER: Okay, Stuart. Thank you.

MR. TAYLOR:Thank you. NEWSMAKER

MR. LEHRER: Now an April 15th talk with the IRS commissioner, and Margaret Warner will conduct it.

MS. WARNER: For many Americans, this is one of the least loved and most harried days of the year, the deadline for filing income taxes. For an update on how the process is working this year and how technology is changing the way people file their taxes, we're joined by IRS Commissioner Margaret Milner Richardson, who has led the agency since 1993. Good evening, Commissioner Richardson.

MARGARET MILNER RICHARDSON, IRS Commissioner: [Philadelphia] Good evening, Margaret. How are you?

MS. WARNER: Very well. Thanks for being with us.

COMMISSIONER MARGARET MILNER RICHARDSON: Thank you.

MS. WARNER: We're five and a half hours before the midnight deadline. Give us an update. How many people have already filed? How many are you expecting in these final hours?

COMMISSIONER MARGARET MILNER RICHARDSON: Well, we've had about 67 million people who've already filed this year, and in these final few days and hours, we're expecting anywhere from thirty-six to thirty-eight million people to file returns, and then another six or few more million who will be asking for extensions.

MS. WARNER: And how many of these individuals, what percentage use accountants or outside preparers?

COMMISSIONER MARGARET MILNER RICHARDSON: Well, based on polling information, approximately half of the people do use a preparer. Not all really need to, but indications are maybe half the people go to a preparer.

MS. WARNER: Let's turn to a favorite topic, refunds.

COMMISSIONER MARGARET MILNER RICHARDSON: Right.

MS. WARNER: What percentage--last year you had some problems with refunds, some delays. Have you, have you ironed those out? What percentage of taxpayers get refunds and how long does it take to get them?

COMMISSIONER MARGARET MILNER RICHARDSON: Margaret, we--last year we slowed the process down. As you many recall, we had some problems with refund fraud in prior years, and we wanted to assure that refunds were only going to the people who were really entitled to them, so we did slow that process down. It was very successful. We actually lost a million and a half dependents last year and stopped about a half--

MS. WARNER: Just magically?

COMMISSIONER MARGARET MILNER RICHARDSON: Just magically. And stopped about 1/2 billion dollars in refunds from going out the door that shouldn't have gone, so we think it was a successful effort. This year has been much smoother. We've already paid out quite a number of refunds, over 40 million, and the average amount of the refund has gone up this year to about $1200.

MS. WARNER: Now, why has the average amount gone up?

COMMISSIONER MARGARET MILNER RICHARDSON: Well, I think it's gone up because of the indexing for exemptions. We're not exactly sure. And sometimes people adjust their withholding so they can get a larger refund. We don't encourage that. In fact, we'd like to see people break even so that we don't them money and they don't owe us money, but people do tend to use as a way of savings.

MS. WARNER: All right. Now, how many people do you believe do not file at all who should file?

COMMISSIONER MARGARET MILNER RICHARDSON: Well, several years ago, we estimated that there were probably about ten million non-filers, seven and a half million individuals and two and a half million businesses. We have had an active non-filer program to encourage people to come in and file, and we have--

MS. WARNER: Sort of an amnesty program?

COMMISSIONER MARGARET MILNER RICHARDSON:Well, we're not really an amnesty, because you still owed the tax, but what we did tell 'em is if they'd come in and file, and they contacted us before we contacted them, then in most cases we wouldn't prosecute. We've gotten ironically about a third of those people actually were getting refunds, so the reasons for not filing probably weren't too clear to a lot of people.

MS. WARNER: Now what about compliance? What percentage of Americans do you think cheat on their taxes in some form or other?

COMMISSIONER MARGARET MILNER RICHARDSON: Margaret, we think that the vast majority of the people really are honest and do file or try to file accurate returns. You often hear that--a number of 86 percent compliance level. And that's an estimate based on the dollars that we think are collected. We believe that we collect about 86 percent of the dollars that are due and owing, about 83 percent come in voluntarily, and then our enforcement actions bring in another 3 1/2 percent every year.

MS. WARNER: And auditing, how do you decide who you audit and what percentage of taxpayers get audited?

COMMISSIONER MARGARET MILNER RICHARDSON: Well, we have an audit coverage rate of about 1.4 percent probably this year, and we have a score based on a number of factors that take into account deductions and income and likelihood of non-compliance. And so we select returns for audit based on a number of factors.

MS. WARNER: I heard on one news account today that your chances of being audited were higher if you filed late, say tonight, is that true?

COMMISSIONER MARGARET MILNER RICHARDSON: No, that is not true. In fact, I did hear the same report, and I was interested. I was sorry I wasn't able to speak to that person, because when you file has absolutely nothing to do with whether you'll be audited. A lot of people think that if they use the label that comes with their tax package that they'll be audited or have a higher likelihood of being audited, and that's not true either. That information is used to process the return more quickly and frequently to process a refund more quickly.

MS. WARNER: Let me ask you about another news report, and this was in the "New York Times" yesterday. It said there was a great unevenness in whether you got prosecuted for tax fraud, depending on where you lived, and that, for instance, if you lived in Ronoake, Virginia, that was the number one place to live to have a likelihood of being prosecuted, fifty-seven times higher than if you lived in New Mexico. Why?

COMMISSIONER MARGARET MILNER RICHARDSON: Uh, Margaret, I think one of the fallacies in that article was it really focused just on a one-year period, and when you're looking at prosecutions, you need to look at several years, because, because there are year-to- year distortions. The other thing I think that was pointed out in that article is that that was not just tax crimes but also involved referrals for prosecution on money laundering and, as well as some threats against IRS employees, so there--I think you really need to parse through the numbers and also look at a several year period.

MS. WARNER: But do you think it is even-handed or some people in better shape depending on where they live?

COMMISSIONER MARGARET MILNER RICHARDSON: Well, we certainly have, try to have uniform standards across the country, but frequently and I think the Justice Department U.S. attorneys are in positions to ultimately decide whether or not they can prosecute, so there is a possibility that you could have some unevenness, but we really do try to, to keep that out of the system. And I think we do a good job of that working closely with the Justice Department.

MS. WARNER: All right. Let's turn to this tax system modernization that IRS has been--had underway for about five years. How are you trying to change the way people file, and how much progress have you made so far?

COMMISSIONER MARGARET MILNER RICHARDSON: Well, we're, we're very much interested in having people engage in electronic commerce, and that means both filing tax returns electronically, as well as making payments electronically. We now have the largest employers in this country are making their federal tax deposits electronically. Over the last several years, we've gone from nobody being able to do it, to I think over 50,000 employers who do that today. We're receiving several hundred billion dollars that way. And the number continues to increase every day. We're also looking at a number of options for electronic filing. We have 2.6 or 7 million people who filed by telephone this year. That means that in less than 10 minutes and any time of the day or night, they were able to file using their touchtone telephones. We've got what we call on-line filing, where people can use tax preparation software, and that's being expanded, was expanded this year, and will be expanded next year. We're looking at a whole host of options, but we'd like to get the paper out of the system. It's a more accurate way to file, and when you file an accurate return, it means you probably won't have to hear from us again until next year.

MS. WARNER: Now, the General Accounting Office and the Republicans of Congress have been very critical about the pace and sort of sophistication or they say lack thereof in this modernization, and the Republican Congressman who oversees--head of the Committee who oversees the IRS said there was a $4 billion fiasco and that really you all just--you were buying the wrong computers, things weren't compatible, you weren't taking care of the confidentiality of people's private information. What do you say to all those criticisms?

COMMISSIONER MARGARET MILNER RICHARDSON: Well, our, our tax system's modernization program is really a series of projects, and it's been underway or in the planning stages for several years, and we've always targeted the year 2000 to complete the biggest part of that process. We're, as I said, providing more options for taxpayers to file electronically than ever before. We have acknowledged some of the criticisms. We think that we do an excellent job of delivering filing seasons every year and programming our computers, but we are doing more with private contractors in developing our software for the new system. We're also very concerned about security and privacy. Those are things that we take very seriously, and we are building in the utmost in security into our new system. So I don't think tax preparers need worry about our commitment to having the safest and securest system possible.

MS. WARNER: Well, Commissioner Richardson, thanks for being with us.

COMMISSIONER MARGARET MILNER RICHARDSON: Margaret, thank you very much. FINALLY - MARATHON MAN

MR. LEHRER: Finally tonight, to all that running in Boston and to Charlayne Hunter-Gault.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: Today marked the 100th running of the sporting institution known as the Boston Marathon, 26 miles and 385 yards of ups and downs and a shot at a certain kind of glory. More than 38,000 runners began the race in Hopkinton, Massachusetts, at noon, and the end in downtown Boston, where there were champions in the men's, women's, and wheelchair divisions, and many thousands of sore feet. How to explain 100 years and the growth of marathon mania: we're joined by a man who ran the race today and won it four times in the past, Bill Rodgers. Mr. Rodgers, thank you for joining us. Are you a little winded there?

BILL RODGERS, Former Marathon Winner: [Boston] I'm not now, but I was during the race, yes.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: What was it like out there?

MR. RODGERS: Well, it was kind of tricky maneuvering through all the runners. I've never been in a race where there were so many runners, and I've never usually been back so far, so it was an experience for me, but I had a lot of help from a good friend, and there was a lot of mutual support among runners. We all give each other water. It's pretty fascinating.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: Of course, this is the largest one there's ever been, right?

MR. RODGERS: Yes.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: The largest marathon?

MR. RODGERS: As far as I know, this is the biggest marathon in the world.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: What--tell me what "Heartbreak Hill" is and what it was like getting there today?

MR. RODGERS: Well, Heartbreak Hill is the fourth hill in a series of hills--excuse me--starting around the 17-mile mark. Heartbreak Hill is the final hill. It's 600 yards long. It's about the 21 mile mark. Just as your body is beginning to really feel the fatigue, you don't know if you can make it, you've got to climb this hill, but I hardly even saw the hill today. There's so many people on that section of the course, and they're cheering for you every step of the way, they pull you into the--over the top of the hill.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: Was the marathon different at 100?

MR. RODGERS: Yes, it was, it was different. It was certainly different for me. I'm retired as a competitive marathoner. I wanted to run it just because it was the 100th, but, uh, the people along the course are the same, I think, and they've been watching it so long, they really love the runners, and admire, I think, their effort, and they cheer 'em on tremendously. It's really exciting. There's a powerful atmosphere at the start, during the race, and along the finish line. It's just amazing.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: Is that why people do it, for the adulation?

MR. RODGERS: Well, maybe that's a little of it, I guess. I think it's partly though that we all have this incredible challenge of this distance to overcome, and sometimes you fail at it or you don't hit your goals. It's very disappointing. But you always think you can improve in the sport, and usually you can. It's a great sport to make strides in. Some sports you take two steps back for every one forward. But this one you always can go forward, I think.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: How much of it has to do with amateurs being able to run with professionals?

MR. RODGERS: I think that's a pretty interesting part of our sport also. You can have Olympic champions. There were many Olympians there today, many world record holders, and you might beat one of those runners. I saw, in fact, a world champion from a few years back on the side of the road. He has a leg injury, and he wasn't able to finish. He just had a bad day. That can happen to anybody. We're all not immune to these kind of setbacks, and I dropped out twice on Boston, and just about every top runner in the world has.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: But you kept coming back.

MR. RODGERS: Well, I, I was really lucky, because, Charlayne, I moved to Boston and I had a store on the course, and I dropped out my first time there. The second time I hit 14th. The third time I was able to win. And it was a thrill. It's an addicting kind of race. Every part of the race was handled tremendously well today by the Boston Athletic Association, by thousands of volunteers. The whole city comes together, and I really like that connection between everyone helping each other out. You know, there's a lot of goodwill floating around, I think. I love that part of that. I love the energy of the spectators. You know, they cheer for you and you wave, and it makes you feel like you're in the Super Bowl.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: Of course, Boston, they don't call it the Super Bowl, they call it the mecca of marathoning. How, umm--what impact has this mecca of marathoning had on sports and, and exercise and people's attitudes towards being healthy?

MR. RODGERS: Well, I think it's had a good effect, because we found that really, that there are no restrictions in entering this sport, distance running or marathoning. You don't need to be a certain weight or height or have a tremendous amount of talent in a particular area. You can just go out there and through your own kind of ambition and determination create the athlete you want to be. And I think people are really intrigued by that. I certainly was as a runner, and I still am. Just like getting older. It even gets more interesting as you get older. I think that's a big part of the attraction of our sport.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: What do you expect to see in the next hundred years?

MR. RODGERS: The next hundred years, that is a good question.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: Oh, thank you.

MR. RODGERS: That's the toughest one of all, but I think today was a kickoff for the next hundred years, and I hope that John Hancock Financial Services, who is our sponsor for the marathon, a big American corporation, will stand by our sport, because we need big companies to take a look at sports like ours which are not really in the limelight very much. Maybe one day a year they are, and yet, I think the endurance sports are a big part of American sports today, and participation is the key.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: Great. Well, we'll look forward to seeing you over the next hundred years. Thank you, Bill Rodgers.

MR. RODGERS: My thanks. RECAP

MR. LEHRER: Again, the major stories of this Monday, Israeli fighter planes and artillery pounded Hezbollah guerrilla targets in Lebanon again. Hezbollah fired rockets at Northern Israel. President Clinton began his Asian trip with a stop in South Korea. He goes to Japan tomorrow. And in Liberia, the fighting and the looting continued. American officials ended emergency air lifts but said they would resume, if necessary. We'll see you tomorrow night. I'm Jim Lehrer. Thank you and good night.