Return to Hearings List

I have come to Washington, D.C. today mainly to argue one practical proposition: that the $1000 individual contribution limit in our presidential nominating system makes it virtually impossible for anyone except the frontrunner--or a remarkably rich person-- to have enough money to run a serious campaign.

This has a number of bad effects for our democracy. It limits the voter's choices and the opportunity to hear more about the issues. It gives insiders and the media more say and outsiders less. It protects incumbents and discourages insurgents. It makes raising money the principal occupation of most candidates which, in turn, makes campaigns too long. The $1000 limit was put in place in 1974 after Watergate to reduce the influence of money in politics. It has done just the reverse.

I also have come with this practical solution: raise the limit. First, raise the limit to $10,000 per individual contribution for the first $10 million a campaign receives. This would allow each presidential candidate to start with what one might call a "First Steps Fund." Any campaign, in order to get going, has to undertake so many expensive first steps that by the time it raises the money to pay for them, the campaign might be over. After campaigns raise $10 million, the limit per contribution would be $3000, about what the 1974 limit would be worth in today's dollars. Continue the ban on corporate contributions. Disclose all contributions immediately on the Internet. Impose stiff fines for failure to disclose. In short, restore free speech and competition; guard against abuse by reasonable limits and full disclosure.

Sen. McCain was the only Republican able to mount even a semi-serious challenge to the front runner in the 2000 Republican primaries for president. One reason was because he had the advantage of a kind of "First Steps Fund." This was perfectly legal. Members of Congress have given themselves the right to transfer leftover campaign funds to presidential campaigns. Sen. McCain transferred $2 million. This $2 million was really worth more than $2 million. To have $2 million left, a presidential candidate would have had to raise closer to $4 million, because the costs of fundraising and complying with federal rules usually consume as much as 50 percent of the amount that is raised. And it helps that those who contribute to a Senator's campaign may give $2000 rather than $1000--which can then be transferred to a presidential fund which ordinarily may accept only $1000.

Despite this advantage, a well run campaign, and unprecedented media encouragement early on, Sen. McCain was not able to raise enough money to run the kind of campaign his candidacy--or any serious candidacy deserves. He skipped Iowa, I suspect, not because of his opposition to ethanol, but because it cost $4 million to compete in Iowa, the first caucus state. At least that is what Mr. Forbes and Gov. Bush each spent in Iowa. Sen. McCain organized and advertised early in only a handful of states while Gov. Bush was able to afford to spend the time and money to organize every state--creating the impression and the fact that his nomination was inevitable.

You may ask, what about Senator Bradley? He did raise enough money to compete. But he is, I would argue, a rare exception. From the beginning he was the only Democrat challenger to a vice-president whose president had unloaded upon him some challenges. Sen. Bradley had been on televison for thirty years. He had served the New York City area, where the largest cluster of Americans who give $1000 to candidates reside. He was heavily encouraged by the media.

I mention the media here, but not in criticism. I do not believe the media in politics acts much differently than the media does in any other aspect of American life. The national editor of the Washington Post did announce that the Republican race was over one year before the convention. But the media and people with money always pick winners and run polls in everything. That happens because the audience, we the readers and the watchers, seem to love it. The audience also knows that the media is often wrong. Last week there were more sixth seed basketball teams left in the NCAA tournament than first seed teams. And the money people don't always know so much either; the last favorite to win the Kentucky Derby was Spectacular Bid in 1979.

The most important difference between presidential politics and sporting events is that, in sports, what the media predicts doesn't matter much. The teams must play the season. The horses must run the race. That determines who wins the race. On the other hand, in presidential politics when the media picks a winner and the fund raisers place their bets, that ends it. The season's canceled. The race ends. When you are raising money at $1000 per person, not enough people can be persuaded to give if everyone is saying you have no chance to win.

Where did we ever get the notion that there can be a meaningful competition for the biggest job in the world if the system makes it virtually impossible for all but the frontrunner to raise enough money to organize states, travel, hire staff, answer reporters questions and the mail, do research and buy ads? NYU Law School cannot become as good as Harvard without money. The Los Angeles Times cannot become as good as the New York Times without money. Presbyterians are likely to save more souls if they have more money. It was better to land at Normandy with battalions instead of squadrons.

If I may offer one personal example. When I attended New York University Law School in 1965 its goal was to become as good as Harvard. NYU may now have done that. It has taken money, and a lot of it. In its last campaign NYU Law raised $183 million, more than all the Republican presidential candidates combined in the 2000 competition. No one suggests that being so awash in money inevitably corrupts NYU's endowed professors. And no one thinks of trying to catch Harvard by raising the necessary funds in $1000 amounts.

Senators should be more aware of the real effect of the $1000 limit than any other group in America. Senators know that the $1000 limit has turned Washington, D.C. into a city of panhandlers harassing one another for contributions. Senators know that both parties' campaign committees work hard to find millionaire candidates who can spend their own money and who do not have to worry about $1000 limits. Senators know that the $1000 limit has spawned soft money abuses, made campaigning perpetual and forced Senators to spend time making calls for $1000 contributions when they should be debating China policy. The only good thing about the $1000 limit from a Senator's point of view is it makes it harder for anybody to raise enough money to defeat a Senator--which may be good for the Senator, but is bad for our democracy.

I have many more arguments based upon the free speech principle of the First Amendment. I have presented these in speeches and I have given reprints of these to the committee staff for the record. These are my principles: I believe in individual contributions, free speech and full disclosure. I believe everyone should be able to spend unlimited amounts of money saying what they believe--not just Mr. Forbes, Mr. Perot, the NRA, pro life, pro choice, special interest groups, newspapers and TV stations, all of whom are permitted to do that today. This means, in an ideal world, I would have no limits on individual contributions, no corporate or union contributions, and would require all contributions to be immediately disclosed on the Internet.

The proposed federal regulation of campaigns deeply troubles me. Telling a pro-choice or pro-life advocate that she cannot buy an ad just before an election would be like King George telling Tom Paine not to print so many pamphlets because it might stir up a revolution, or the Congress telling Harriet Beecher Stowe not to say anything nice about Abraham Lincoln just before the election of 1864. This goes to the very heart of our democracy. I am amazed that many of those who enjoy the most free speech--those in the media and in the universities-- are either silent or in favor of regulating the speech of others.

But I am not here to make first amendment arguments. I am here to make one practical argument, which is this: in our present system, except for the presidential frontrunner, virtually no one can raise enough money to run a serious campaign.

In Senators McCain and Bradley, Vice-President Gore and Governor Bush the parties presented to the nation four good men who are well-qualified to be president. Many in the media have therefore praised our system for producing the most competitive races since 1976. Really? Would you call it competitive if only two good horses show up at the starting gate for this May's Kentucky Derby, especially if one of the horses is declared winner after the first lap? Would it be the NFL's most competitive season if this August before the season starts the sportswriters and the owners anoint the Titans and the Rams and schedule the Super Bowl for September?

I am convinced that one reason many Americans don't vote is because they know they have lost most of their say in picking our presidential nominees. That decision is now in the hands of those with money and the media. This is partly because of the crowded primary schedule, partly because of the Soviet-style rules some states-- such as New York-- use to make it hard for candidates to get on the ballot; but mostly it is because the $1000 limit, operating within the nomination process we have today, has the effect of ending the race almost before it starts.

The solution is to spread out the primaries, stop states from making it hard to qualify, and raise the limits. Raise the limits to $10,000 for the first $10 million raised and $3000 for every contribution thereafter. Restoring free speech to the nomination process is the surest way to restore the people's right to pick our presidential nominees.

For more:
3401 West End Avenue
Suite 520
Nashville, Tenn. 37203
Telephone 615.620.2000