Q: The first question I wanted to ask was about "stealth PACs." Voting on a bipartisan basis, Congress recently closed the loophole that allowed these groups to conceal their donors. But some have questioned the significance of the legislation. Do you think this is a step toward more fundamental reform, or does it just serve as political cover for Republicans so they can say they got something done on campaign finance?
A: Well, I do think it's a positive step toward campaign finance reform, but I'd be the first to say it's only a minor step in the right direction. One of its main purposes is to give us some momentum, to show that we can win one of these battles. I think anybody that tries to use [voting for the "stealth PAC" legislation] as political cover in a campaign is really making a mistake because it's impossible to compare the disclosures . . . to the more fundamental issue of banning soft money.
But I do think it was a good sign. It was the first time in 21 years that a serious piece of campaign finance reform legislation passed and was signed into law. It is a good thing that we nipped this loophole in the bud, which we were not able to do with soft money. As a result, that loophole has almost swallowed the whole system.
Q: When it comes to soft money, who would you say are the three biggest political opponents of getting rid of the soft money loophole?
A: [First,] I think it's the group that I would call the "Washington gatekeepers." These are people hired by the big interests to represent them in Washington, and who are in the unusual position of lobbying people on the issues but also of helping to distribute the campaign contributions.
Another group are -- unfortunately -- the leaders of the Republican Senate caucus, who have kept this filibuster [on the McCain-Feingold bill] going for years. They are the only reason [the bill] has not become law under the Clinton administration.
And then the third group is that group of interests -- some companies, some unions, and some individuals -- who actually feel that they can succeed in the soft money game. Fortunately, many corporations and other interests are saying, "We don't want to have anything to do with this." Even corporations that I've sparred with in the past, like Monsanto.
But there's quite a group that [is] still involved in the soft money game. In some ways, it's hard to blame some of them because it's almost less like bribery and more like legalized extortion. I think some of these companies feel that if they don't put up and their competitor does, somehow they'll lose out in the legislative process.
Q: At the Democratic national convention in Los Angeles, Al Gore named campaign finance reform as his top priority if he gets elected. Should we simply take that pledge at face value, given that at the same time a lot of Hollywood fundraising was going on? Or if not, how significant do you think his embrace of this issue is?
A: Well, I think the speech he gave in Milwaukee when I was with him and endorsed him for the presidency was very specific and very credible because he said [McCain-Feingold] would be the first bill that he would introduce as a domestic piece of legislation. . . . Then he laid out specifically how he was going to go about doing this, including almost a schedule of meeting with groups and other steps he would take, as well as broader campaign finance proposals.
I do take that seriously. I do believe he means it. I think one of the ways that the vice president could show that he means it is, after the election, to make a series of promises about his own conduct in the future. For example, I would love to see him, as a new president, say that he would not raise any soft money as president.
So I think there are things he can do if he wins to show that these were not empty words. I don't think they were empty words, and I do think he sincerely wants to pass the bill. He's always been on board with the bill and always supported campaign finance reform throughout his legislative career. Although [Vice President Gore] has called himself an "imperfect messenger" of campaign finance reform, there really is no valid criticism of his commitment to legislation, which has always been there. I have no reason to believe it would change [if he were elected] president.
Q: Let's suppose that somewhere down the line, McCain-Feingold passes. Isn't it true that big money will just find new loopholes, even if the soft money loophole closes?
A: I do believe that money and politics are almost inevitably linked throughout history. The question is, to what degree? There will always be some connection, perhaps, unless we can get genuine public financing; and even then, who knows what could happen? But the fact is, there has been a quantum leap in the influence of money on politics in the past few years, through the growth of soft money.
I think the post-Watergate reforms, although not perfect, basically kept the system in check for a number of years. Things started to fall apart after 20 years, and have completely fallen apart now. But for a good 15 to 20 years, there was some restraint within the system. We need to close the loopholes that have been developed so that we can get back to that kind of balance. [It wouldn't be] perfect, but it would be enormously different from the corruption that I think is destroying our democracy right now.
My belief is that it's just like the tax code. You try to reform it, like they did in 1986, and then people start gnawing away at it. At some point, there are just too many loopholes, and you've got to do it again. That's what we have to do with campaign finance reform. We have to keep fixing it, but that can't be an excuse for not doing anything, simply because loopholes will be found.
Q: Suppose that you were a big money donor. What's the next loophole you'd exploit if the soft money loophole were closed?
A: I'm not sure what the next tactic will be. I suppose they'll try to do more with these so-called "independent" expenditures [or issue ads] -- try to funnel more money through independent groups. If you ban soft money. . . . That probably would be one technique. Although, I am skeptical that a lot of these corporations and others would actually funnel all the money that they're funneling to the parties out to independent groups, because that really puts them in a tougher position.
For example, it's one thing for AT&T to give $300,000 to the Democratic Party and $300,000 to the Republican Party. It's another thing for them to give $300,000 to the right to life people. That puts them on one side of an issue that's very controversial among their customers. . . .
A lot of this money has come into the system because of the soft money loophole for contributions to the parties, and some of the money would not go to these outside groups. It would definitely reduce the amount of money in these elections if we could ban soft money.
Q: I want to shift and talk about Senator McCain for a second. To what extent would you say that the popular embrace of McCain is an embrace of campaign finance reform, and to what extent is it the embrace of a charismatic personality?
A: I would say to a significant extent it's an embrace of his message of political reform. But that message would not have been received had it not been for his tremendous personal background and charismatic personality. So they're both necessary. The first person who'll tell you that is John McCain, who, whenever I saw him during the primaries, said, "Everywhere I go, people ask me about McCain-Feingold."
If he did not have that message, he'd still be a hero, he'd still be a great American. But it was the message that really catapulted him into a position where not only independents, but a lot of Democrats were interested in him.
Q: How have you dealt with the demands imposed by money politics in your own campaigns? Do you follow your own rules? Do you walk a middle line? Or do you take the Al Gore approach, which seems to be, "play the game until the rules change"?
A: Without wanting to sound self-righteous or self-congratulatory, I would have to say that I've done more than any other politician in America to apply the rules that I believe in to my own campaigns, at the risk of losing my Senate seat.
In 1992, when I ran as a challenger, I . . . put on my garage door a pledge to get a majority of my campaign contributions from Wisconsin citizens. People said, "Well, that's no big deal; you're a challenger; you can't get much money from out of state anyway." But I promised to do the same thing if I ran for re-election.
When I ran in 1998, I was one of first incumbents in American history to put a one-dollar-per-person limit on how much I'd spend on my re-election. I got something like 75 percent of my campaign contributions from individuals, which was well above the original McCain-Feingold proposal. I limited my PAC contributions to no more than 10 percent, even though I certainly could have gotten a lot more of that. And most significantly, perhaps, when my opponent [and his party] were pouring soft money on me -- outspent me something like $12 million to $4 million -- I refused the soft money help that my party wanted to give me.
So I think I became [one of the first politicians] to ever say, "I refused the soft money, and I'm willing to take the risk of losing my seat to do it."
Q: The American Civil Liberties Union [ACLU] is in many ways the classic liberal advocacy group. It opposes campaign contribution limits, as well as spending caps for campaigns. Would you say the ACLU just has it completely wrong? Or if there are shades of truth to their position, where are they going wrong?
A: Well, the ACLU is doing their job, which is to raise . . . the strongest individual rights position they can, on any issue. I think they're often right. I just think on this particular issue -- although their argument is not bizarre or even difficult to understand -- it's wrong. The United States Supreme Court has shown in its most recent significant ruling, the Missouri Nixon v. Shrink PAC case, that the view that the First Amendment prohibits limits on contributions is incorrect.
The court ruled six to three, in a case having to do with hard money contribution limits, that either the reality of corruption or the appearance of corruption or impropriety is a sufficient reason for a legislative body to put some limits of how much somebody can give. If that's true for a contribution of $1,000, Lord knows it's true for a contribution of $50,000 or $100,000 -- and that's what we're talking about with soft money.
I think the ACLU has every right to make the argument. It's not a silly argument; it's an argument that credible constitutional scholars -- at least a few -- have entertained. But the vast majority -- we have a letter signed by 127 constitutional scholars around the country, led by the Brennan Center -- [say] that that's incorrect. The U.S. Supreme Court clearly agrees with their view on this and disagrees with the ACLU's conclusion.
Q: One last question: The states of Maine and Vermont have led the way in passing so-called "clean election" laws. Massachusetts and Arizona have them too. Is this the way reform needs to come about, at the grass-roots level? Or do we need something at the federal level, to complement [these local efforts]? Or is the best way of doing it some combination of both?
A: To me, the strongest things going on are these state initiatives. McCain and I really jump-started this issue nationally. It's unusual for something to get jump-started here and then have the rest of the country start acting on it, but that's what happened [with campaign finance reform]. We've had trouble passing this bill in Washington because the grass roots had not really gotten going yet. And now it's happening.
With what's happened in Maine and Arizona and Massachusetts, and [perhaps some] other states this year -- that's where I think the real effective pressure is going to come from. The local and state levels are the ones that get their senators to say, "Well, wait a minute, my state's on board this now, maybe I'd better support McCain and Feingold."
