Advocates; Should The Federal Government Subsidize Political Campaigns and Limit Individual Contributions? ; 414

View online at openvault.wgbh.org

Transcript

Enter chapter titles here

Semerjian:

Ladies and gentlemen, may I have your attention, please.

Annoucer:

Moderator Evan Semerjian has just called tonight's meeting to order.

Semerjian:

Good evening, and welcome to The Advocates. Tonight's program focuses

on the role that money plays or should play in political campaigns, and

specifically our question is this: Should the federal government

subsidize political campaigns and limit individual contributions?

Advocate Allard Lowenstein says, "yes." Mr. Lowenstein?

Lowenstein:

I think everyone knows that at the heart of democracy are elections.

And if elections become corrupted, then democracy is in bad shape.

Tonight, to discuss two major efforts to change the corruption that

everyone now realizes has eaten away at our democracy, we have two of

the most committed fighters in Congress for fair elections, two of the

most honest men there, Congressman Anderson of Illinois and Senator

Biden of Delaware.

Semerjian:

Thank you. Advocate Tom Bourdeaux says, "no." Mr. Bourdeaux.

Bourdeaux:

Any proposal to subsidize campaigns and limit contributions--and there

are many such bills lurking in the wings of Congress--are not only

ineffective but dangerous. To support the structure of our political

process, I have with me tonight George Webster, a Washington attorney

who represents many trade and business associations, and David Wilson,

a columnist for the Boston Globe.

Semerjian:

Thank you, gentlemen. Now, tonight we welcome two new advocates. Allard

Lowenstein is an attorney from New York, who served one term as a

Congressman from Long Island district from 1968 to 1970. He is now a

member of the Democratic National Committee. And Thomas Bourdeaux is an

attorney from Mississippi and was President of that state's Defense

Lawyers Association. He is a member of the American College of Trial

Lawyers. We'll be back to these gentlemen for their cases in a moment,

but first this word of background on tonight's question.

Perhaps more than any election campaign in the history of our

democracy, the 1972 Presidential election and Watergate related

scandals have raised concern over how we elect public officials. Since

then, more than seventy bills have been introduced in Congress to

reform various aspects of election procedures. These bills raise

several essential questions. Should the federal government subsidize in

full, or in part, the cost of campaigns for federal office? Should

private contributions be abolished or limited? And should there be an

absolute ceiling on campaign expenditures? Tonight our debate will

focus on the principles underlying one of these bills introduced by

Congressman Morris Udall of Arizona and John Anderson of Illinois. It

provides a limitation on contributions by individuals or organizations:

$1,000 for any Congressional or Senate race and $2,500 for a

Presidential campaign. There would be no limit, however, on the total

amount any candidate could spend. This Anderson-Udall bill calls for

federal subsidy, using taxpayers' money to match contributions of up to

$100. It would be limited, however, to a sum of 10$ per eligible voter

for every candidate in any election year. The merits of these

principles--limitations on individual contributions and a partial

government subsidy--are what we will be concerned with tonight. Current

laws governing elections prevent unions or corporations from

contributing to campaigns, although officers are allowed to give in

their own name. Current laws also place a limit on how much candidates

can spend for television or newspaper advertising, a limit on how much

they or their families can contribute, and they require disclosure of

contributions over $100. And now to the cases. Mr. Lowenstein, why

should the federal government subsidize political campaigns and limit

individual contributions?

Lowenstein:

Well, if you were to set out to create a country in which you would

have one man-one vote, free speech guaranteed to everybody, and then

you'd have candidacies in which one side would be able to spend

$22,000,000 and the other side $500,000, you'd realize that that kind

of democracy was a hoax. Nobody would even argue about it. Yet those

instances in our society have become frequent, and the fact that they

don't always occur doesn't mean that they're right when they do occur.

What we're proposing tonight is that there be a way in which everybody,

even if they are not born rich, have a fair chance to be elected to

public office. Today in the United States 90% of the political

contributions come from 1% of the population. What we hope we can do is

to amend the law so that there will be a guarantee that people will

have access to funds so they can run if they have enough support to

merit it, and then to put a limit on how much any one individual can

give so nobody can purchase through wealth an undue share in the

decision-making process. To start the testimony for the evening, I call

Senator Biden of Delaware.

Semerjian:

Senator Biden, welcome to The Advocates.

Biden:

Thank you. Good to be here.

Lowenstein:

Senator Biden, it's nice to have you here, as the youngest member of

the Senate, the one, therefore, who may expect the longest career

there. I wonder if you'd say to us, since it's clear you're not

corrupt, and you got elected, why should people think that the system

produces corrupt results when there you are?

Biden:

Well, I'm not sure you should assume I'm not corrupt, but I thank you

for that. The system does produce corruption--I think implicit in the

system is corruption. In fact, whether or not you can run for public

office--and it costs a great deal of money to run for the United States

Senate, even for a small state like Delaware--you have to go to those

people who have money. They always want something.

Lowenstein:

Well, I wonder whether you would feel that there's some virtue in

forcing candidates to go out and try to raise money. I've heard

people--probably people who didn't run for office--say that it's

uplifting to go out and try to get money. Do you think that there's

something un-uplifting about putting a limit to how much you can ask

one man to give you?

Biden:

I think it's the most degrading experience in the world to have to go

out and ask for money because you know that unless you accidentally

agree with the position taken by the person or group that has the

money, that you run the risk of deciding whether or not you're going to

prostitute yourself to give the answer you know they want to hear in

order to get funded to run for that office. And it's coincidental in

many instances when in fact you happen to agree with where they are,

and you run the risk, by the way, of rationalizing, of saying, "Well,

if I compromise on this one--give them one--I get ninety percent of

what I want, and I don't have to give in too much."

Lowenstein:

So you feel it's a difficult temptation not only for the candidate, not

only for people who give the money, but for the people trying to raise

it.

Biden:

Well, you know, we were told that we politicians, as the young kids

say, rip off the American public. I think the American public in a way

rips off we politicians by forcing us to run the way they do. To raise

$300,000 is no mean feat, and unless you happen to be some sort of

anomaly like myself, being a twenty-nine year old candidate, who can

attract some attention beyond your own state, it's very difficult to

raise that money from a large group of people.

Lowenstein:

Well now, some people who agree with the problem--or our definition of

the problem--turn around and say, "If you just have full disclosure,

that would solve it." Do you think that would have a major effect on

the problems you're describing?

Biden:

I think full disclosure is essential. We have that now, allegedly, but

that's not going to get to the question of how you have to raise the

money and the influence of those who come forward with the money,

whether they be a labor union or a corporate executive.

Lowenstein:

Well, if we put a limit on what individuals can give, and if we have

public assistance for candidates, do you think that would work, as

someone suggested, to make incumbency even more powerful, that there

would be no way, then, that challengers could succeed?

Biden:

No, I don't, but I do think you run the risk, in limiting the amount

that can he spent, of continuing the tyranny of the incumbent. For

example, I'm on this show for one reason: I'm an incumbent United

States Senator. Were this an election year, this would be, allegedly,

votes for me back home. A challenger of mine would have to pay a great

deal of money to get this kind of TV time. We have a lot going for us

when we're incumbents, and we use it.

Lowenstein:

Well, but this process that we're suggesting tonight, in your view,

would not make it more difficult for people to challenge incumbents.

Biden:

Absolutely not. As long as you have a bill like the Anderson bill which

doesn't limit the amount that can be spent, but limits the amount that

an individual can contribute, and that way you further broaden the

process, further broaden the participation, because why does a guy want

to give $50 when he knows Clement Stone is giving $7,000,000? What

influence is his $50 going to have?

Lowenstein:

Now, you might say, what makes it clear that a person is more effective

at raising funds if he happens to know one man who can give him a

million, while someone else may know a hundred who can give $100 each?

That problem of access to money, rich people tend to know rich people.

Would you say that's a fair statement?

Biden:

I think that's correct, and those who aren't rich tend to move toward

people who have ideas that can raise a lot of money.

Lowenstein:

And in the present atmosphere would you say that with Watergate that

we're reacting hysterically to this problem?

Semerjian:

Make this very brief.

Biden:

I don't think so at all. I think this is the single most important

issue that can be resolved by this Congress, to clean up the process.

Semerjian:

All right, I'm sorry. Let's go to Mr. Bourdeaux. I think he's eager to

ask you some questions,

Bourdeaux:

Senator, I know that you said that it was degrading to go out and raise

money. Does this mean that you are not in favor of the Anderson bill,

which does permit contributions up to $1,000?

Biden:

No, it doesn't. I think it's degrading to have to go out and know that

that is your only source of money, when the man you're talking to, for

example, knows that, in fact, he's the only means by which you can even

begin to run for office . . .

Bourdeaux:

But are you in favor of the Anderson bill?

Biden:

Yes, I am in favor of the Anderson bill.

Bourdeaux:

All right. Now, let me ask you this question. The Anderson bill

provides a $1,000 limitation on contributions. Is--are you saying that

going out and asking for $1,500 is degrading?

Biden:

No, I think you missed the point, or else I haven't made the point

properly. If, in fact, you know that the only way you can raise any

money to get to run for public office is to go to vested interest

groups, then, in fact, you're put in the position that you have to

begin to wonder whether or not you prostitute the ideas that you have

about government in order to get the money to begin to run.

Bourdeaux:

Of course you've had recent experience with this, having been elected

in 1972.

Biden:

That's correct.

Bourdeaux:

And I believe that you just said that your campaign cost some $300,000.

Biden:

$276,000.

Bourdeaux:

All right, sir, and you raised that money by public contributions, did

you not?

Biden:

That's correct.

Bourdeaux:

And you raised that money in a race against an incumbent, did you not?

Biden:

That's correct.

Bourdeaux:

Yes, and Senator, I'm sure that you would agree that your service in

the Senate up to this point has not reflected any particular concern

for the larger contributors.

Biden:

Well, the fortunate thing is that I didn't have many larger

contributors and the only reason...See, I went to the big guys for the

money. I was ready to prostitute myself in the manner in which I talk

about it, but what happened was they said, "Come back when you're

forty, son." And so I had to go out . . . so I had to go to a number of

small contributors.

Bourdeaux:

Well, I think we all are grateful, son, that you didn't take no for an

answer. Now, in this Anderson bill there's a provision for the federal

government to match, dollar for dollar, contributions, small

contributions up to $100, is that correct?

Biden:

I believe so.

Bourdeaux:

So that means that federal tax moneys are going to be used in political

campaigns in Delaware, or Illinois, or Mississippi, or wherever. Is

that correct?

Biden:

That's correct.

Bourdeaux:

Now, Senator, isn't it the history of this country that federal control

follows federal money? A recent example: Didn't the President decide it

was expedient to have a 55 mile an hour speed limit on all the

highways, and didn't he get the Congress to pass a bill that says to a

state that "You get no more federal money unless you pass a 55 mile an

hour speed limit"?

Biden:

Can't blame it all on the President, but yes, he did.

Bourdeaux:

Well, but, and the fact is that in any instance where federal money

goes into any given area, there is federal control as to how that money

is going to be spent.

Biden:

There is federal control right now, sir, in exactly how the money can

be spent, what manner in which it can be raised. The only question is

whether or not there will be taxpayers' money involved directly-

Bourdeaux:

Who is going to exercise the control over the spending of this

taxpayers' money?

Biden:

The control will be exercised by, as you point out, the federal

government In terms of whether or not the means of distribution--in

terms of how it can be spent, whether or not you can buy a balloon or a

billboard with that money, there is no control in this legislation or

any that I am aware of.

Bourdeaux:

That is correct, but doesn't history tell us that ultimately there will

be that control?

Biden:

Well, that sort of smacks at the argument always heard about civil

rights. You know, once we get into that field, we . . . You know, that

foot-in-the-door argument that you're making applies to just about

every means of legislation, every particular piece of legislation, that

we pass.

Bourdeaux:

Well now. Senator, I haven't been in many political campaigns, but . .

Biden:

Neither have I.

Bourdeaux:

. . . the few I have been in, there's always somebody that comes up

with what I call a damn fool idea. Now . . .

Biden:

I've got to say the same.

Bourdeaux:

You going to have any protection in these bills against the "damn fool"

factor?

Biden:

No, I think that's human nature. There are an awful lot of damn fools

in the Congress and the Senate and those who want to get there. There's

no way you can legislate against that.

Bourdeaux:

Right. But you think in the long run the American people are going to

put up with their money being squandered on all sorts of wild political

notions.

Biden:

The question is, how long is the American public going to put up with a

small group of men and organizations determining the political process

by deciding who can run and who can't run.

Bourdeaux:

But, Senator, aren't you a living example of the way...

Biden:

I'm an anachronism. I'm a twenty-nine year old oddball. The only reason

I was able to raise the money is that I was able to have a national

constituency to run for office, because I was twenty-nine. I'm like the

token black or the token woman. I was the token young person.

Bourdeaux:

We're talking about this national constituency . . . some of the money

. . .

Biden:

That's not an announcement for office, by the way.

Semerjian:

I'm going to have to interrupt here. Let's go back to Mr. Lowenstein

for a question.

Lowenstein:

I just wondered. Mr. Bourdeaux seems worried about that $1,000 limit.

If Mr. Bourdeaux would agree to support our principle, would you agree

to go to a $1,500 limit?

Biden:

I'd agree to go to a $3,000 limit, which is a bill that I, in fact,

co-sponsored. When I said I'd support Congressman Anderson's bill, I

do; it's better than what we have now. I'd like to see some slight

amendments to it, but I think the principle has to be adopted.

Semerjian:

All right, let's come back to you, Mr. Bourdeaux.

Bourdeaux:

Senator, aren't there some First Amendment problems in telling somebody

that you can't give but $1,000 to a campaign?

Biden:

Quite frankly, I think there are, but we've already in the Federal

Corrupt Practices Act broached that question, and if, in fact, we agree

that it's legal to do what we're doing now, and that does not violate

the First Amendment, it seems to me this is a natural transition, and

if we haven't violated them now, I don't think we'll violate them with

this legislation.

Semerjian:

Well, let's see if I understand you. As an example of the First

Amendment question, if, let's say, I give $1,000 to a candidate of my

choice, I take it I am limited, under this bill, from giving any more,

is that right?

Biden:

That would be correct.

Semerjian:

And if something happened during the campaign that I wanted to speak

out on and spend some money to put a newspaper ad in, I couldn't do

that, isn't that right?

Biden:

That is correct.

Semerjian:

And I take it that's what you mean, isn't it, by the restraint?

Bourdeaux:

Absolutely.

Biden:

There are similar restraints that exist now, though, in terms of how we

can spend our money. For example, we say now you can only spend up to a

certain percentage, 10% per capita on media, 6% of that on television.

I mean, we've already restricted it in that regard.

Bourdeaux:

But there are no statutory restraints on the amount of giving by an

individual at this time, are there?

Biden:

No, there are not, but I fail to see the distinction between the amount

and the means, but there may be, I . . .

Semerjian:

Well, Senator Biden, I want to thank you very much for being with us

tonight.

Biden:

Thank you for having me.

Lowenstein:

I call now Congressman Anderson of Illinois, Chairman of the House

Republican Conference.

Semerjian:

Congressman, welcome to The Advocates.

Anderson:

Thank you.

Lowenstein:

This is probably the grandest coalition since the Christian Democrats

and Socialists were together in Bonn. I'm so glad that you're here.

Congressman Anderson, because you're recognized as one of the great

spokesmen for fiscal conservatism in the House of Representatives. How

come you feel it's worth using taxpayers' money to finance public

campaigns?

Anderson:

Well, actually, Mr. Lowenstein, we're talking about a relatively small

amount of money. Based on 1972 figures, the average subsidy under my

bill would be about $25,000 in the case of a Congressional campaign.

There wore about 850 serious candidates for the Congress in 1972; that

means we're talking about $21,000,000 to partially subsidize the

campaigns for Congress in this country. Now, if you throw in the Senate

campaigns and the Presidential race, you might get up to an overall

figure of about $125,000,000. That's far less than the advertising

budget for almost any major corporation in this country. We're talking

about a very small sum in relation to the very important job that we've

got to do, namely to try to cleanse the political process of the

influence of too much money and big money coming from special interest

groups.

Lowenstein:

But aren't you worried about what Mr. Bourdeaux calls the "damn fool

factor," that every loose nut in the country would start running for

office to get his share of the loot?

Anderson:

Well, in the first place, of course, our bill makes some provision for

this by providing for a threshold amount. A candidate would have to

raise $1,000 on his own--as a candidate for Congress, he would have to

raise $1,000 on his own before he could begin to match from this

federal matching entitlement fund. So I think this is going to screen

out some of the obvious kooks who might otherwise be tempted to run

just to see whether they can get some federal money. But, you know, I'm

not nearly as alarmed about the kooks or the nuts who might be enticed

into becoming a part of the political process as I am about the present

situation, the fact that I think the evidence is overwhelming that

there is corruption in the political process when we leave candidates

at the mercy of a system where it's big money that speaks.

Lowenstein:

Is there a problem from your point of view that rich people will be

denied their right to contribute all the money they want? Do you think

that's a violation of some sound conservative doctrine that we ought to

be worried about?

Anderson:

Well, frankly, I don't think that rich people ought to have a

disproportionate voice in the political process. Merely because a man

was born wealthy, or was able to make a fortune, doesn't mean that he

ought to be able to that extent have a greater voice in the election of

candidates any more than when we decided a few years ago on the one

man-one vote principle, that we don't want weighted voting in this

country. Every man's vote ought to be entitled to the same weight. I

think the same principle applies in the field of the financing of

political campaigns.

Lowenstein:

Of course, Vice President, at least in his post-felonious period has

come to that conclusion also, so maybe it isn't an ideological

question. I wonder if you'd develop for a moment the problem that may

arise if funding is given on an basis that is open to everybody in

terms of whether that means that incumbents will in fact gain great

advantages. Senator Biden talked about that, but you're an expert also

in a district where there has not been too much of a competition for

you. What are your experiences along those lines?

Anderson:

Well, quite to the contrary, I think under the present system we have

what might be called an incumbent security system. Any analysis of

recent elections will show that about 93% of the members of Congress

were re-elected, in 1972 over 901 of the incumbents were re-elected.

Over half of the members of Congress were re-elected by margins of more

than 60% of the vote. There were 12% of the contests in this country

where they didn't even slate an opposition. I think incumbents do have

an overwhelming advantage today, and the only way to redress that

imbalance, to give the challenger a chance, to make our elections more

competitive, is, I think, to try a mixed system of public and private

financing, to let that fellow who wants to challenge an incumbent go

out and raise his money in small amounts of $100 or less and then go to

a federal fund and have that matched by an equal amount. Then I think

he has some crack at the political process that today he has been

denied.

Semerjian:

All right, thanks, Mr. Lowenstein. Let's go now to Mr. Bourdeaux.

Bourdeaux:

Congressman Anderson, you're not really advocating that all the rascals

be turned out in 1974, are you?

Anderson:

Well, I'd like to make at least one exception to that general rule

myself. No, I'm not suggesting there is anything wrong with being an

incumbent. I'm not suggesting that all incumbents are venal. I do think

that, given the statistics that I quoted to Mr. Lowenstein that our

political process today is really less than as competitive as it should

be.

Bourdeaux:

And the purpose of your bill is to try to equalize things. Is that not

correct?

Anderson:

I think it would serve partially, I think, not completely. There are

some advantages of incumbency, as Senator Biden pointed out, that are

there like Mount Everest is there, they can't be removed. I don't think

you're ever going to completely get a situation where everybody is on

the identical plane.

Bourdeaux:

The way you are going to try to equalize things is by providing some

matching funds from the federal government for people who get out and

raise $100 from their sources.

Anderson:

Yes.

Bourdeaux:

That's correct.

Anderson:

Yes.

Bourdeaux:

I believe you already said that it's easier for an incumbent to raise

money. Isn't that true? That's one of the advantages he has.

Anderson:

I think that to some extent that is true.

Bourdeaux:

So there are going to be more matching funds available to that

incumbent than there would be to the challenger.

Anderson:

No, I don't think so for this reason: that I think that the advantage

that the incumbent enjoys in raising funds all too often comes from

special interest groups who contribute more than $100, who may

contribute $1,000 or more. It's the challenger . . .

Bourdeaux:

But if they contribute more than $1,000, they'd be a crook under this

bill, wouldn't they?

Anderson:

It would be violating the limits of the bill, that's true. But to go

back to my point if I may, Mr. Bourdeaux, I think that the challenger,

the fellow who's less known in the district, who hasn't served the

district and therefore built up the whole network of contacts that the

incumbent has, he, to a greater extent, I think, is going to be able to

interest the relatively small contributor in putting some money on his

candidacy and promoting his cause. So, I think that although there is

some imbalance inevitably, and I wouldn't deny that. I think that under

my bill, the bill that Congressman Udall and I and 140 others have

co-sponsored in the House, that challenger would have a better chance

than he has today.

Bourdeaux:

But there's nothing in the bill that's going to give that challenger

more money to offset some of these built-in advantages that an

incumbent has, is there?

Anderson:

I'm not sure that I read your question entirely accurately. I can only

repeat that your...

Bourdeaux:

Let me make myself clear. There's nothing in the bill that says that a

challenger is going to get $200 for every $100.

Anderson:

No, he would be limited to the same matching formula that the incumbent

would have.

Bourdeaux:

Now, Congressman Anderson, your theory is that by limiting

contributions and by providing this federal subsidy, that you are

really going to get more folks interested in the political process. Is

that not true?

Anderson:

Well, the statistics, I think, show that only about 6% of the American

people today ever donate to a political campaign, whereas about 35% of

them would give if they were asked.

Bourdeaux:

But your purpose is to attract more people to the political game.

Anderson:

And I think that this would provide the incentive. If a candidate knew

that he could have those small contributions of $100 or less matched

from a federal fund, he would have added incentive to go out and raise

that money from more people in small amounts, thereby involving a

greater number of people in the political process.

Bourdeaux:

But, Congressman, isn't it true that in Puerto Rico, for example, where

they have tried the full subsidy of elections, that there has been a

decrease in citizen participation rather than an increase?

Anderson:

That could well be, and I am not for total public financing of

political campaigns. I think to totally divorce the candidate from the

necessity of going out to the grassroots and interesting people in his

campaign to the point where they're willing to contribute money would

be bad. I'm not advocating total public financing. Rather, what I would

describe as a judicious blend, or mix, of public and private money.

Bourdeaux:

But, Congressman, isn't it true that if we take the first bite of the

apple, we're ultimately going to eat the whole thing?

Anderson:

Well, I suppose your question assumes that if we go to this system,

that ultimately it will be total public financing. I don't think that .

. .

Bourdeaux:

I guess that's just like being a little bit pregnant, isn't it?

Anderson:

I don't think that totally follows at all. And I think the analogy is

not particularly apropos, and I just believe that this system would

involve more people, give the challenger a better chance and be far

more satisfactory than the present system, which I think has been

proven to be corrupt.

Semerjian:

Let me ask you a question, Congressman. In the bill there are ceilings

of $2,500 for Presidential campaigns and $1,000 for Congressional

campaigns, isn't that right?

Anderson:

Yes, sir.

Semerjian:

What was the reason for choosing those figures rather than something

else?

Anderson:

Well, frankly, any limitations, I suppose, have a tendency to be

somewhat arbitrary, and, as Senator Biden said, I'm not going to be

absolutely rigid about that. If somebody wants to amend that and make

it a somewhat higher figure, I suppose that I would agree. But the fact

is in the last campaign we had contributions ranging up to a million

dollars. I think I'm correct that at least one person gave a million

dollars. I'm not suggesting that he did that with any venal motives,

but I think inevitably the taint of suspicion has to attach itself to a

gift of that size, that that person somehow is going to have a

disproportionate influence on the political process.

Semerjian:

All right, excuse me. Let's go back to Mr. Lowenstein.

Lowenstein:

Congressman, isn't the central point of a matching proposal that the

federal government only matches contributions up to $100, which means

that small contributions double and larger ones don't?

Anderson:

Exactly. There is no matching for any contribution over $100.

Semerjian:

All right, Mr. Bourdeaux.

Bourdeaux:

You mentioned something about a million dollar contribution. Under a

full and complete disclosure program, the voters would know that this

candidate got a million dollars from somebody, wouldn't they?

Anderson:

Theoretically that's true. Unfortunately, however, under the present

Campaign Finance Act that we passed in 1971 became effective April 7th

of 1972. There are literally tons, I suppose, of those reports lodged

in the Clerk's office, the Secretary of the Senate's office, and they

really don't have the kind of expertise, or the kind of experience, to

deal with those reports and get that information out to the public, so

I don't think that just reporting things is enough. I think we've got

to have an absolute limit.

Bourdeaux:

But that bill could be amended to make the reporting more specific and

more definite, couldn't it?

Anderson:

Well . . .

Bourdeaux:

And then, Congressman, once that reporting is made full and complete,

isn't it the right of every man to vote for the guy that takes on a

million dollars if he wants to?

Anderson:

No, I don't think so. I think, again, that to give any person that

disproportionate degree of influence, because you'll never convince me,

and I'm a politician, have been for fourteen years, you're never going

to convince me that a politician isn't going to listen a little bit

more closely, a little bit more attentively, to the voice of that

person who has given a million dollars than somebody who has given a

very innocuous sum.

Semerjian:

All right. Congressman, I want to thank you very much for being with us

tonight.

Anderson:

Thank you.

Semerjian:

Mr. Lowenstein.

Lowenstein:

I think the simple truth is that the fundamental corruption that we're

dealing with is not even touched by disclosure because the fundamental

corruption has to do with the fact that if you want to run for office

and you're not rich, with costs soaring, with population soaring, you

can't do it, and therefore you eliminate as candidates an enormous

number of very qualified people if you don't make public funding

possible as part of the process of running for office. And so I hope

that we understand that unless we substitute for our national credo of

one man-one vote a notion of one dollar-one vote, we better get around

to doing some public funding.

Semerjian:

Okay, thank you. For those of you in our audience who may have joined

us late, Mr. Lowenstein and his witnesses have just presented the case

in favor of the federal government subsidizing political campaigns and

limiting individual contributions. And now for the case against, Mr.

Bourdeaux, the floor is yours.

Bourdeaux:

Ladies and gentlemen, we contend that tonight's proposal is both

ineffective and dangerous. We agree that there is a crisis of

confidence in our political process. People are appalled at what

they've been seeing and hearing, and they are fearful of what they are

going to be exposed to next. Something must be done to restore

confidence, to stir the voters out of their apathy and their

indifference that we all sense today. The trouble with Mr. Lowenstein's

approach is that it doesn't really reach the real problem. Instead,

subsidizing a campaign with tax dollars attacks the very structure of

our political process. The idea of limiting campaign contributions

makes the outrageous assumption that there is a price tag on

corruption, and it will certainly make worse some of the problems it

seeks to correct. These problems are real enough. There are people in

and out of government who are dishonest. Let's prosecute them and

convict them. There are illegal and secret contributions. Let's expose

them. But let us not abandon confidence in the American people to make

sound decisions when they have the facts. We all have the right to

express ourselves politically within the law to any degree that we

choose. We have the right also to resist supporting with our tax

dollars the candidacies of people that we don't agree with. To speak to

the real problems of money in politics, I call Mr. George Webster.

Semerjian:

Mr. Webster, welcome to The Advocates.

Bourdeaux:

Mr. Webster is a practicing attorney in Washington, D.C. He represents

many trade and business associations in their dealings with government.

Mr. Webster, the allegation has been made by the proponents of the

Anderson bill that special interest groups get things done in

Washington by making contributions during campaigns. You've been there

for a long time representing various groups. Tell us how you do get

things done in Washington.

Webster:

Mr. Bourdeaux, let me say this. Making contributions is not the way to

get things done in Washington. I've watched it for over twenty years,

and business and professional groups, unions, they get things done by

doing their homework.

Bourdeaux:

What do you mean by homework?

Webster:

Homework means they do the research, they get the economists, the

accountants, the lawyers, the people from business, or unions, or

whatever they want, and they make the case, just like you do before a

judge down in Mississippi. It's a matter of persuasion, and that's the

way things are done in Washington.

Bourdeaux:

Well, now, you'll have to admit, of course, that we do have a problem,

a crisis of confidence, in our government, in the integrity of the

people that we sent to Washington.

Webster:

Yes, sir, I think that's correct.

Bourdeaux:

Well, what are we going to do about it?

Webster:

I think there are several things. One is not to adopt what I consider a

fake bill because this bill would lead you to believe that it would

help clean things up. It won't do anything like that. The way to get

things done--I was amazed also that a man that I went to law school

with, the head of the Watergate Committee, Archibald Cox, didn't

prosecute some of those people in Washington that made the corporate

contributions, because that's been...

Bourdeaux:

How long have corporate contributions been illegal?

Webster:

Since 1907, and there has not been one person that has ever gone to

jail for violating that provision, so if you had some people who were

tough and would go down there and prosecute, instead of going down

there and making speeches, you would be a lot better off. That's one

thing.

Bourdeaux:

What about full disclosure?

Webster:

Full disclosure is something, I think, that does a lot, and I think

that if you really have full disclosure, that that would go a long way

towards making honesty in elections. And I heard Congressman Anderson

say that we didn't really have full disclosure because you'd have to go

dig through all those papers. I've read the Mew York Times very

carefully, and the Washington Post and the Washington Star during the

last couple of years, and they have guys down there every day at the

General Accounting Office going through those documents, and if you

read those papers carefully, you'll find it has all been reported right

in the press.

Bourdeaux:

It has also been said that we need to get government money into these

problems, into these campaigns, so that the people who don't have money

still have an opportunity to offer themselves for office. What do you

say about that?

Webster:

Well, I don't think that makes any difference. Most of the people in

public life today started out without a nickel. They started out like

all of us. I'm a lawyer, I started out with nothing, I've had to work

my way through school, went to law school, and like you, I didn't get

clients when I started working, but eventually you have to build

yourself up. Fortunately, Senator Biden got to be a Senator at

twenty-nine; that's unusual. But ordinarily the guy who's successful in

politics, in business, in any profession, it takes a long time. But if

you look at the records of almost anybody in Congress or in business

today, somebody that really amounted to something, they started out

with nothing, and that's the way that the American dream is.

Bourdeaux:

In other words, to be a chief you've first got to be an Indian.

Webster:

That's right. And maybe they don't want to put in the ten years, but

most of us have had to put in ten or twenty.

Bourdeaux:

Now, Mr. Webster, this bill says to you and me that we can't make a

contribution of more than $1,000 in any one year. Suppose I went down

to the bank and borrowed $1,500 and wanted to help out a friend of mine

get elected; I'd be a crook, wouldn't I?

Webster:

That's right, under that bill, if it passed.

Bourdeaux:

Are there any Constitutional questions involved in that?

Webster:

Yes, I think that Senator Biden is a very fine man, but he obviously

hasn't been reading the cases in the last couple of years he has been

in the Senate. There's a case now pending in the United States Supreme

Court in which the Court of Appeals in Washington, D.C., the United

States Court of Appeals, held that there are many First Amendment

violations in the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971, passed by Mr.

Anderson and his colleagues, and that the bill is essentially

unconstitutional. That's the American Civil Liberties Union and the New

York Times both argue that the bill is unconstitutional in its main

aspects. If you read the cases through the years, you will find--and

who knows what the Supreme Court will eventually decide--you will find

a lot in those cases which indicates that any restraint on freedom of

speech in this country is going to be stopped. And I'm frankly

shocked--and particularly here in Faneuil Hall--that somebody would

suggest that we're going to start down that terrible road of having a

restraint on freedom of speech.

Semerjian:

Well, it sounds formidable. Let's go to Mr. Lowenstein. I think he

wants to ask you some questions.

Lowenstein:

Mr. Webster, I don't want to get on a sidetrack, but was I dreaming

that Mr. Cox was fired by President Nixon for whom you raised funds?

Was this not, in fact, occurring in your mind? He should have

prosecuted before he was fired, is that your point?

Webster:

I've restricted my comments to the fact that there were a number of

people that Mr. Cox apparently found who had made corporate

contributions and apparently they started cutting a deal with all those

guys, so that only the corporation would be penalized. And I think that

somebody ought to go to jail.

Lowenstein:

But don't you think that's part of the reason why he was fired, because

he was moving into that? In any case . . .

Webster:

That's not the way I read the newspaper.

Lowenstein:

I wonder why you think Mr. Vesco contributed his suitcases of hundred

dollar bills. Was he afflicted with a Santa Claus streak? Was he so

generous with his private means that he wanted to give Nixon money even

though he wanted no influence?

Webster:

I think people outside of Washington have a strange concept of what

goes on there. As I said, I just don't . . .

Lowenstein:

Strange things go on there.

Webster:

I think what Mr. Vesco thought he was buying was influence. What he was

really buying was a one way ticket to jail.

Lowenstein:

I see. What about Mrs. Farkas, when she gave her $300,00 after the

campaign ended up in Luxembourg. She wasn't purchasing anything with

that $300,000?

Webster:

All I know is if you pay $300,000 to be an ambassador...

Lowenstein:

You should have . . .

Webster:

. . . There's something called the United States Senate, and if you

have to disclose that contribution, and they're willing to still give

you the job, that means the Senate must decide that you're qualified.

Lowenstein:

In other words, when the milk prices go up and the milk lobby pledges

money, and the President and the Secretary of Agriculture sit there and

agree to raise price supports, we're supposed to say, "Well, that's

none of our business. The Senate can handle it." Why can't we have a

law that says that there's no temptation? Why put a cat in charge of

guarding milk? Why don't you simply say there's not going to be a time

when people can purchase influence? Why put that temptation there? Just

say no, you can't do that, your limited contribution is this. How does

that infringe on First Amendment rights?

Webster:

In the first place there has been no showing that I've seen, or

finding, that that contribution solved that problem of the milk prices.

One way to solve that is to do away with price supports, and you

wouldn't have the problem; that's one way to go at it.

Lowenstein:

You should tell that to the President you campaigned for. I'm just

simply saying that when the President raises price supports on milk

products and gets contributions, and the ordinary citizen pays 3 cents

more a bottle of milk, I think he's paying more that way than he'd be

paying if we financed out of public funds the campaign of all

candidates equally. Instead of having government intervene on one side

in the campaign, namely to keep itself in office, what's wrong with

having government intervene impartially for all candidates who meet

certain minimal standards? Why doesn't that meet the First Amendment

requirements?

Webster:

Well, as I've said, there are a number of cases which hold that it's a

violation, if I want to go spend $10,000 on an election, or you do--and

you probably spent $10,000 on an election--and if there's any restraint

on that, it's a violation of our freedom of speech, and I think that's

a very bad road to start down; even to restrict it to $2,000 or $2,500,

we're starting down that road and you'll end up in socialization, or

still worse. In Russia you can't give a campaign contribution, and

that's between here and there.

Lowenstein:

Nixon could. He gave them a quarter of our grain supply at half the

price we have to pay for it. All I know about it is that at this point

there's a very real desire on the part of the American people to stop

influence peddling and purchasing in government. You raised First

Amendment objections which I'm trying to understand. You say there's a

case--there is a case, but the case hangs on vagueness. What that means

is that you make the law less vague. It doesn't mean you abandon the

principle of trying to stop corporations and wealthy individuals from

using their extra resources to purchase, or try to purchase, influence

at the cost to the ordinary citizen. What's wrong with that on First

Amendment . . . Isn't the First Amendment strengthened . . . ?

Webster:

I'm not going to argue with you, but there are many cases. There are

many cases that hold it's a violation of the First Amendment. But let

me go back to what I originally said, and I think . . .

Lowenstein:

Let me ask you this is it a violation...

Webster:

... as a Washington lawyer, I've watched for twenty-two years many

things be done in Washington, and they way you get something done is

the way most good lawyers and most good Congressmen, most good Senators

do it: they listen to the arguments--most good judges, there are a lot

of crooked judges--but most good guys will sit down and listen to those

arguments, and if you want something done in Washington today, the big

corporations, by and large, hire good people to go do it, and they do

it on the merits.

Lowenstein:

So why should they be opposed to preventing them from trying other

procedures? The President of American Airlines said he was intimidated

into giving that money to Nixon. Why is it wrong to prevent the

President from intimidating . . . ?

Webster:

Well, that was the excuse for doing a criminal act for which he

probably should have been sent to jail.

Lowenstein:

Do you want to keep the law that says corporations can't contribute and

labor unions can't contribute funds?

Webster:

Corporations can't contribute funds, but labor unions can, of course,

through their members.

Lowenstein:

Do you want to keep the law that prohibits labor unions and

corporations from contributing campaign funds, or do you want to repeal

that law too?

Webster:

No, corporations are not individuals and are not entitled to ... in the

First Amendment, as you well know.

Lowenstein:

If corporations shouldn't be allowed to contribute, why shouldn't there

be a similar limit so that officers of corporations can't contribute

and then get bonuses to get the money back that they gave to avoid that

law? Why can't we close that loophole?

Webster:

If that's what they do, then they've committed an illegal act because

that's a corporate contribution, and people have been sent off to jail

for that one, because that itself is an illegal act, if you can prove

that that's the reason they got the bonus.

Lowenstein:

But if you're prepared to accept the fact that there can be a limit on

contributions, why can't you see that if there's merit to limiting it

further, the First Amendment doesn't get violated to do that?

Semerjian:

Make this very brief.

Webster:

As you well know, the First Amendment doesn't apply to corporations.

That's very easy. It does apply to individuals, and as I say . . .

Semerjian:

All right, let's go back to Mr. Bourdeaux.

Bourdeaux:

Mr. Webster, the truth of the matter is that if these large

contributions that Mr. Lowenstein has been talking about were

immediately announced, and the public knew about them, they wouldn't be

given in the first place, would they?

Webster:

I think that's probably true of most of those contributions, if not

all.

Bourdeaux:

Yes, sir.

Semerjian:

All right, let's go back to Mr. Lowenstein.

Lowenstein:

I'm just curious. If we could stop influence purchasing and peddling,

since you say that good corporations don't want to do it that way

anyway, why is it against the interests of free speech or corporate

influences to stop them from doing what good ones wouldn't do to begin

with?

Webster:

Because if Mr. Anderson can have a bill which says I can give $1,000

this year, you can have an amendment next year which knocks it down to

$50. Eventually it's at zero, and the whole government machinery then

becomes in charge of it, and I can assure you if Mr. Anderson's bill

passes, that I, as a lawyer, can go in there and tie up anybody's

government money because of violations--we can get injunctions. I've

been down that very carefully, and we could tie up anybody's money so

that he would have been elected or defeated two years before the court

finally decides whether or not he's entitled to the money. That's one

main problem with that bill.

Semerjian:

Mr. Webster, let me ask you a question. Do you think it's a good thing

or a bad thing that a wealthy person can give $5,000,000 to a candidate

of his choice, while most people can't even approach that?

Webster:

Well, I think again you're back to the matter of free speech, but to

address that directly, I see nothing wrong with that because it depends

on the point. Somebody who is the President of Alcoa, for example, is a

wealthy man today, and he started out with nothing. If you had talked

to him twenty-five years ago, he'd give you nothing. Today he can give

you a lot of money.

Lowenstein:

Should there then be a limit on very wealthy . . .

Semerjian:

Wait a minute, Mr. Lowenstein. I'm sorry, we don't have any more time.

Mr. Webster, thank you very much for being with us tonight.

Webster:

Thank you.

Semerjian:

Mr. Bourdeaux.

Bourdeaux:

I call as my next witness David Wilson.

Semerjian:

Mr. Wilson, welcome to The Advocates.

Wilson:

Thank you.

Bourdeaux:

Mr. Wilson is a columnist with the Boston Globe. Tell me, Mr. Wilson,

why do you think that so many distinguished people, authorities in both

parties, have taken a stand in favor of public financing of elections

with our tax money?

Wilson:

Well, I think when you have a question like that, you have to approach

it from the old cui bono point of view. Who will benefit from this

thing? The fact of the matter is that Mr. Lowenstein suggests that

there's something inherently pure about public money and something

inherently corrupt and dirty about private money. I submit that that's

not necessarily the case. Rich people disagree diametrically about the

purpose in which they wish to place their financial contributions. Now,

public interest groups, like Common Cause and the Center for the

Funding of Political Financing--or whatever that outfit is in

Washington-- they benefit. Contributors benefit. Private contributors

benefit from public funding because they don't have to make the

contributions. Rich candidates, they benefit. They don't have to make

disclosure of their rich friends which sometimes damage them in their

political contest. Rich, a whole lot of candidates don't wish to face

the disclosure problem. There's no disclosure problem with public

funding. Finally, of course, politicians, political managers,

television cosmeticians, political consultants, all the people involved

in the business of electing candidates to office benefit from public

funding. Udall-Anderson would be a little of it. Eventually there are

other approaches which would make it entirely a public function.

Bourdeaux:

Well, don't you think, though, Mr. Wilson, it would be a good idea to

try to equalize things a little bit so that the fellow without any

money could run for office?

Wilson:

Well, I see no objection to the fellow without any money running for

office. I do see an objection to taking my taxes and requiring me

somehow to pay money to support the candidacy of a man with whom I may

not only disagree, but whom I may personally detest and abominate his

principles, which, of course, public funding would do.

Bourdeaux:

Well, but what these people say is that the Anderson bill would bring

the people a little closer to the political process. What do you say to

that?

Wilson:

I suspect that it's a kind of a foot-in-the-door matter. Once the money

starts flowing from Washington, people wouldn't be anywhere near as

close to the political process as they are now, when a man seeking to

stand for office has to go to the people and get support from his

friends, associates, and the community in general.

Bourdeaux:

I've always thought that one of the responsibilities of an elected

official was to have to go to the people and talk to them and find out

where they stood and where they were willing to put their support. Do

you agree with that?

Wilson:

I certainly do.

Bourdeaux:

And would this bill deter that sort of a relationship?

Wilson:

I think that ultimately the Udall-Anderson bill is a bill which is very

carefully and intelligently drawn to meet the kinds of objections that

I've made to it here. But it also was drawn to meet those objections in

order to get the very important principle, and revolutionary principle,

of public funding established in law. Once you get Udall-Anderson,

you're going to get Kennedy-Scott and some of the more generous public

funding bills.

Bourdeaux:

Kennedy-Scott is another public financing bill.

Wilson:

That's the one that didn't quite make it over Christmas.

Bourdeaux:

That's the one. Now, Mr. Wilson, are there any problems in our

political system?

Wilson:

Certainly there are problems in the political system, and the problems

do, to some degree, flow from the availability of money. Now, adding to

private money additional public money isn't going to change the

problems of the charismatic candidate who fails to deal with the

issues, the theatrical nature of the game as it has become, the problem

of the candidate who uses pollsters to find out where the crowd is so

then he can get out in front of them later on, the sort of thing Joe

McGinness wrote about in The Selling of the President.

Semerjian:

All right, let's go to Mr. Lowenstein.

Lowenstein:

First I want to thank you for coming, and I think it's important that

this position be discussed, but I'm curious; I heard Archibald Cox

blamed because Nixon fired him, but now you're opposing the

Anderson-Udall bill on the grounds that you don't like the

Kennedy-Scott bill. It seems to me that we're getting off the subject.

Are you opposed to the idea that people should go out and raise small

contributions from the community and then have that matched?

Wilson:

I'm opposed to having the government of a free country hire people to

run for public office, which is what public financing of candidates is.

Lowenstein:

In other words, if this, you call it a revolutionary principle we're

adopting--I don't know how it's revolutionary, since Theodore Roosevelt

proposed it, unless he was a revolutionary...

Wilson:

Well, it hasn't been done, Congressman.

Lowenstein:

It's revolutionary in the sense that, with what we have now, it would

prevent the kinds of things from happening which have had the country

in upheaval over its political process.

Wilson:

That's your conclusion.

Lowenstein:

Well, I'm asking you, how is it revolutionary; that's what I'm asking.

What is revolutionary?

Wilson:

Well, at the present time persons who wish to raise money for the

purposes of getting themselves elected to office have to raise it

privately and not from tax funds. I think that's a substantial and

revolutionary change.

Lowenstein:

Suppose I said I thought it was revolutionary to have a system in which

small numbers of people could purchase elections, and that was not true

when we started. But that's become revolutionary.

Wilson:

I think the burden of proof rests with the person who makes that

charge.

Lowenstein:

The revolutionary charge.

Wilson:

The charge that people are purchasing elections. I can suggest to you

that up in the fifth district of Massachusetts in 1972 the heaviest

spending candidate of all the 435 Congressional fights was a fellow

named John Kerry, who had nine Democratic primary adversaries, and was

beaten by a Republican in a Democratic district. Now, how does this

stack up with the position that somehow people are buying elections

with dirty money?

Lowenstein:

The fact that one can cite instances where people who spent more money

lost doesn't change the general problem, does it? The exception in a

situation such as you've cited, does that change the basic fact that

for most people to run for office is now impossible because they cannot

engender the kind of support Mr. Kerry with a national constituency

could, or Senator Biden could.

Wilson:

Well, I assume those nine fellows who ran in the primary against Kerry

had a shot too. Some of them were Mayors, members of the state

legislature, individuals . . .

Lowenstein:

Well, I don't want to quibble.

Wilson:

How is it exclusionary? How . . .

Lowenstein:

I'd just like to understand what you're saying. In the country in which

Abraham Lincoln once could campaign for 759, he could shake hands with

every voter in his district, when you now have districts with a half a

million people, with technology that means you can't even get on

television or mail to your voters anything about yourself unless you

have enormous sums of money, why isn't it right to say that we now need

to provide the wherewithal so that people can be seen and know their

own constituents when they're running, rather than rely on the luck of

having wealthy friends or wealthy mothers or whatever else. Why is that

not part of the American process?

Wilson:

This is probably kind of a curve on my part, but I think the American

process was rather well demonstrated in New Hampshire in 1968, a matter

that you're quite familiar with. Senator McCarthy certainly had

substantial funding in New Hampshire in 1968, and you were there.

Lowenstein:

You and I understand that there are times when virtue can triumph even

without lots of money. What I'm asking about is not . . .

Wilson:

Well, he bought all George Romney's billboards, didn't he?

Lowenstein:

I'm not asking whether it can occur. I'm asking why the framework and

structure and legal set-up shouldn't make it fairer. Why is it fairer

to depend on those exceptions, rather than to say we want a system in

which equal access to funds is available within the limits of what we

can do, given the fact that we know that incumbency goes in certain

advantages, given the fact that if you have a beautiful wife, you have

a certain advantage. There are obviously other factors we can't

equalize. But why is it anti-American, antidemocratic, revolutionary,

whatever adjective you want, to say that in this country a person's

capacity to run and to have his views heard, to meet his constituents,

to mail to them, to get on television ought not to be limited to the

question of whether he knows a few well-to-do people or has national

prominence that will get him funds from around the United States? Why

is that not a step towards fairness in your mind? You're a very

fair-minded man.

Wilson:

Well, I don't think that's entirely true. I mean- Dan Walker in

Illinois, Reuben Askew in Florida, a person with great funds, Ottinger

in New York, Metzenbaum in Ohio have failed. I don't see that you

establish the case that a poor man of merit cannot find friends, cannot

find supporters who will not corrupt him. I've read an awful lot of

campaign disclosures in Massachusetts--that's a very stiff and careful

depository system--and I know those names, and they aren't people

trying to corrupt the process. Most of them are people trying to assist

it and strengthen it.

Semerjian:

All right, let's go back to Mr. Bourdeaux for a question.

Bourdeaux:

Taking the big view of the whole thing, Mr. Wilson, what do you see is

the biggest danger of this bill?

Wilson:

Well, I think once again you start hiring people to run for office. The

public's going to want to know what you do with the money you pay them.

Bourdeaux:

Is that going to bring about federal control?

Wilson:

Well, there was once in this country a U.S. Attorney General's

subversives list. It's conceivable that in a different political

climate the Congress might be moved to change the law so as to exclude

persons of extreme views of some kind, persons who had in some way

damaged themselves physically. Now, there would be a constitutional

challenge, I don't say it's that simple. But I say that where you spend

public money the questions of responsibility and accountability do

arise, and the government controls that money.

Semerjian:

All right, back to you, Mr. Lowenstein.

Lowenstein:

Is it proper in a society like ours that if you happen to be born

wealthy, or happen to have access to a very wealthy person who either

agrees with you or sponsors you, that you should be able to get an

enormous advantage over other people in your community by having

unlimited resources to use in a campaign, while everyone else has to

grub around and try to find small amounts of money. Is that democracy?

Wilson:

I guess it is. I don't think, Mr. Lowenstein, that it really is

possible to legislate an equality between, let's say, Nelson

Rockefeller and myself, nor is it necessarily just that it should be

legislated. I think we've got a very substantial ideological

difference.

Lowenstein:

Right. You've summarized our difference right there. That's exactly it.

I can't say take away his money, but I can say don't let his money

purchase elections where other people don't have that opportunity. I

think that's democracy.

Semerjian:

All right, Mr. Wilson, I want to thank you very much for being with us

tonight. Thank you, gentlemen. That completes the cases, and now it's

time for each of you to present your closing arguments. Mr. Bourdeaux,

could we have yours, please.

Bourdeaux:

Ladies and gentlemen, we have identified what I see as two problems

here. I submit to you that we've shown that Mr. Lowenstein's proposal

solves neither of them. First, the problem of large campaign

contributions influencing government. I think we've demonstrated that

you don't have to burn the barn down to get rid of the rats. Full

disclosure of all contributions will effectively deal with that problem

if it exists. Secondly, the problem of access to the political arena,

both for candidates without money and for the small contributors. Now,

our political history is full of examples of good men without much

money who have been successful politicians, have been elected to office

and served their government well. They have attracted the support they

needed because of what they stood for, and they were their own men in

office. We see tonight a proposal which can only end in total federal

control of our elections, the shackling and discouraging of our

participation in this election of our elected federal officials. Stand

firm with me on this most basic proposal and vote "no."

Semerjian:

Thank you. Mr. Lowenstein, could we have your argument.

Lowenstein:

I really find myself wondering what country you gentlemen have been in

since the last election and since the disclosures since then. I wonder

if anyone believes there will be anything left of democracy in the

United States if we don't fundamentally overhaul the way in which money

affects political process. I can't believe that at this stage we're

going to permit people to say that because there may be flaws of one

sort or another, quibbles over detail, or argument over some sort of

historical route that we're on in the future, that we should not take

at least the first step toward democratizing the elections in the

United States so far as money is concerned. If we don't do that, I'm

very concerned about whether in fact we will have elections in which

the ordinary citizen has a fair way to influence his neighbor and to

run for office. And I hope that all of you who are listening to this

program will see the basic importance to our whole system of writing to

support the Anderson-Udall bill and of summarizing these arguments to

your neighbors so that they too see that this juncture we're at must be

used to overhaul the political process so we're not for sale as a

country.

Semerjian:

Thank you. Thank you. And now it's time for you in our audience to get

into the act. What do you think about tonight's question? Should the

federal government subsidize political campaigns and limit individual

contributions? Send us your "yes" or "no" vote on a letter or postcard

to The Advocates, Box 1974, Boston 02134. Nothing is more crucial to a

democracy than the integrity of its electoral process, and that

includes your participation. Send us your vote on whether or not you

think election laws ought to be changed in the manner proposed tonight,

and we'll tabulate your votes and make them known to Congress and

others concerned with this issue. Remember the address: The Advocates,

Box 1974, Boston 02134.

And if you'd like a transcript of tonight's debate, send your request

to the same address: The Advocates, Box 1974, Boston 02134. And enclose

a check or money order for $2.00 to cover the cost of printing and

mailing. You should get your copy within three weeks of our receiving

your request. Be sure to specify your name and the program.

Now, recently The Advocates debated the question, "Would the nation be

better off if fewer people went to college?" Of the more than 2,300

viewers who sent us their votes, 55% said yes, that emphasis ought to

be placed less on a Liberal Arts education and more on a junior

college, vocational school job training, or education through work or

travel. 45% said no, the liberal, humanizing effect of a four year Arts

course is so important that it ought to be encouraged even for

reluctant students.

And now let's take a look ahead to next week's program. [Promotional

Message]

And now, with thanks to our able advocates and their distinguished

witnesses, we conclude tonight's debate.

Transcript

Transcript

Series: Advocates

Program: Should The Federal Government Subsidize Political Campaigns and Limit Individual Contributions?

Episode Number: 414

Contributing Organization: WGBH (Boston, Massachusetts)

AAPB ID: cpb-aacip/15-fq9q23r539

If you have more information about this item than what is given here, or if you have concerns about this record, we want to know! Contact us, indicating the AAPB ID (cpb-aacip/15-fq9q23r539).

Description

Credits: Guest2: Anderson, John
Guest2: Wilson, George
Guest2: Webster, George
Guest2: Bourdeaux, Tom
Guest2: Biden, Joseph
Moderator2: Semerjian, Evan
Publisher: Supported by a grant from the Open Society Foundations.

AAPB Contributor Holdings: WGBH
Identifier: b67f97f963a023600ac4a643e76f1d4e714297b1 (ArtesiaDAM UOI_ID)
Format: video/quicktime
Color: Color
Duration: 00:00:00

Citations: Chicago: “Advocates; Should The Federal Government Subsidize Political Campaigns and Limit Individual Contributions? ; 414,” 1974-02-07, WGBH, American Archive of Public Broadcasting (GBH and the Library of Congress), Boston, MA and Washington, DC, accessed April 25, 2024, http://americanarchive.org/catalog/cpb-aacip-15-fq9q23r539.; MLA: “Advocates; Should The Federal Government Subsidize Political Campaigns and Limit Individual Contributions? ; 414.” 1974-02-07. WGBH, American Archive of Public Broadcasting (GBH and the Library of Congress), Boston, MA and Washington, DC. Web. April 25, 2024. <http://americanarchive.org/catalog/cpb-aacip-15-fq9q23r539>.; APA: Advocates; Should The Federal Government Subsidize Political Campaigns and Limit Individual Contributions? ; 414. Boston, MA: WGBH, American Archive of Public Broadcasting (GBH and the Library of Congress), Boston, MA and Washington, DC. Retrieved from http://americanarchive.org/catalog/cpb-aacip-15-fq9q23r539