Reading Michael Hager in The Washington Post this morning (6/18/10), "Congress needs a mediation tool to dissolve gridlock," notes that we are going to extremes to solve simple problems. Hager recommends "A political neutral service for legislative mediation" like the Congressional Budget Office. I don't know where Hager got the idea that CBO settles anything. But the problem is money.
As Chairman of the Commerce, Space Science, Transportation Committee of the United States Senate, I had learned in World War II that if you look out for your men, they'll look out for you. I followed this rule until the Republicans had a fundraiser for my opponent in my race for re-election, and all the Republicans attended save Ted Stevens. Stevens already was my hero and his non-attendance confirmed it. But I became immediately "partisan" as concerned the other Republicans. They wanted to get rid of me, and this made me feel likewise.
Money has not only destroyed bi-partisanship but corrupted the Senate. Not the senators, but the system. In 1966 when I came to the Senate, Mike Mansfield, the leader, had a roll call every Monday morning at 9:00 o'clock in order to be assured of a quorum to do business. And he kept us in until 5:00 o'clock Friday so that we got a week's work in. That meant you weren't chasing money on the weekends, but stayed around Washington, partying with Senators that differed with you during the week. Today, there's no real work on Mondays and Fridays, but we fly out to California early Friday morning for a luncheon fundraiser, a Friday evening fundraiser, making individual money appointments on Saturday and a fundraising breakfast on Monday morning, flying back for perhaps a roll call Monday evening. This persists for six years.
In my last race in 1998 to be elected the seventh time to the United States Senate, I had to raise $8.5 million. That factors out to $30,000 a week, each week, every week, for six years. You don't start collecting money the year before your re-election date. Rather, you are in constant fundraise mode. There's no way to raise $8.5 million in little South Carolina, so I had to go to friends all over the country. That meant arranging trips during the week to travel the country on the weekend. And $8.5 million also means that you have to depend on the Democratic or Republican Campaign Finance Committee. These Campaign Committees in the Senate guarantee partisanship. We have party lunches every Tuesday, which is to help the party members that are up for re-election the coming, or that year. All members are constantly raising money for the other members, traveling, making talks, so that you can get help from the Committee when your time comes around. I always admired Bob Kerrey, the Senator from Nebraska, who was a Medal of Honor winner. But when he helped me with a million dollars as Chairman of the Campaign Committee in my last race, I learned to love him. I hear he is taking Jack Valenti's place with the Motion Picture Association, and I wish him well.
But back to the money. Schedules have been changed for money. On Washington's Birthday, a junior member would take the floor and read Washington's farewell address, but the United States Senate was in session. Now, we've merged Lincoln's Birthday with Washington's Birthday for a ten-day break to fundraise. And on St. Patrick's Day in March, another break to fundraise. Easter in April - fundraise. Memorial Day break - fundraise. Fourth of July break - fundraise. Month of August off - fundraise. Labor Day - fundraise. Columbus Day break - fundraise. I've even had a fundraiser on Friday after Thanksgiving. And we cancel policy committee lunches on Thursday to go over to the Democratic headquarters to fundraise. Two little ladies keep you biting a sandwich or your tongue, calling on the phone: "We've got to take back the Senate." My tally showed that I raised $611,000 on these Thursday calls for Inez Tenenbaum, South Carolina's candidate for the Senate in 2004. Money is the reason filibusters work. Both Republicans and Democrats go along with filibuster threats. They never really bring out the cots and require all night speaking. One Republican holds the floor for his side and one Democrat for his side, and the rest of the Senators can go to New York or California to fundraise.
Nineteen ninety-eight was twelve years ago. It takes more money now. I told aspirants against Jim DeMint this year that they have to raise $4 million to $5 million before they get help from Washington. The Republicans will easily put $15 million in the campaign to keep DeMint's seat. And what was an $8.5 million race in 1998, has now become a $12 million to $15 million race.
Today, the campaign committees in Washington look for a candidate not with ideas or experience, but with money. I think one in California has just spent $80 million in the primary. I remember Russell Long instituting the dollar check-off on your income tax so as to finance "any mother's son to run for president." Now public finance has become passé. Obama's classmates went to Wall Street instead of law offices, and with the internet and his classmates, he raised more money than Chris Dodd, the Chairman of the Wall Street Committee. The need for money goes up and up, and the very corruption that we tried to prohibit in 1971 and 1974 has been corrupted by the Supreme Court.
In 1971 and 1974 the Congress limited spending in campaigns so that no one could buy the office. Maurice Stans' "cash and carry" campaign for Richard Nixon alarmed us. We legislated a limit for so-much per registered voter for the office in each state. I took the position that the Supreme Court corrupted the freedom of speech by overruling the '74 act. In a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court held that Congress could limit contributors in campaigns but not the candidates. We intended to limit both, but our main concern was a candidate buying the office. To justify the decision, the Court equated spending in campaigns with free speech. I know Madison never intended his first amendment to the Constitution for freedom of speech to be measured by money. Even The Wall Street Journal agrees with me. Editorializing against an exemption for the National Rifle Association on a campaign finance measure, The Wall Street Journal writes: "But the First Amendment wasn't written to allow tiers of political speech, with some speaker more protected than others." Madison never intended the rich complete protection in politics with the poor limited.
Now in the Citizens case, allowing corporations freedom of speech, and the Arizona case adulterating public financing, the Court has guaranteed corruption. We'll have to go to my joint resolution to amend the Constitution permitting Congress to limit spending in federal campaigns. We politicians in Congress that ran for office - not pristine judges that had never run for public office - knew the corruption that needed to be eliminated.
I wanted to return to Madison's original intent. Buckley amended the first amendment, and my amendment would return the first amendment to Madison's original intent. I got a majority vote, but never the two-thirds necessary for a joint resolution. Public financing doesn't prevent the rich from buying the office, and only a limit on spending will stop the partisanship and put the Congress back to work for the country rather than the campaign.
The Congress has been playing games with the Supreme Court on campaign finance for thirty years. We can stop the gamesmanship and "play marbles for keeps" with the Constitutional amendment. The amendment is popular. The Governors' Conference called me immediately to limit spending in state elections. Contributors are tired of contributing, and office holders are tired of fundraising. When spending is limited in campaigning, those in Congress will have time for the country rather than the campaign. They can stay in Washington and spend time on the nation's business. Filibusters will be limited. Lobbyists will be limited. Corporations will be limited. Partisanship will be limited, and we'll be returning the first amendment to its original intent. This is what Congress intended in '71 and '74, signed into law by Richard Nixon, and Congress can do it again if it wants to take care of the country instead of the campaign.
When Congressman Barton apologized to BP, affirming close ties and deep -pocket position of our elected leaders, it brings a fundamental realization... To grab a hold of our national INTEGRITY.
Because this is exaclty what this moment defines in our political sysytem.
An opportunity to claim integrity, recognizing not only how it is in our system, but how the lack of it damages us, as a country.
Republicans AND Dems have been ridin a wave of corruption and perdition, openly in the pockets of huge corporations and Big Oil for generations now, knowing there's something out there, somewhere, ... Anyone with conscience knew was WRONG... But oh, SO incidental.... hardly there.... At all.
Until now.
The most immense catastrophe on our planet we've seen ever, caused by US.., on OUR Gulf of Mexico... One of the many blessings GOD has blessed our nation with. And we ALL KNOW, caused by this SAME corruption and greed. And now look. So... Who's gonna shoulder this one ?
I tell ya what .. Let's at least call this for what it is, and why it is. If you're wondering WHY it's WRONG that our politicians are deep in pockets of corporations, WHY our elected leaders should be free of the pressures to raise money, THIS is about as good a reason as you're gonna get, Senator.
THIS IS THE STRONGEST, MOST CLEAR CUT REASON YET FOR CAMPAIGN FINANCE REFORM....
NOW.
I have my doubts that even by eliminating corporate money or placing a spending limits that there would be much effect. The fraternity of party will still nominate the folks who will maintain the status quo. We need a parlimentary set up so that there is proportional representation and so that coaltions are necessary (read multi-partisanism) for legislation to occur.
I thank you for your candid opinion and hope that Bob Kerrey is a quick study as nothing in his bio relates to the movie industry. As an aside, his affiliation with Newt Gingrich in the "National Commision for Quality Long Term Care," gives me the creeps. Tell me your comments are cynicism, please.
Article 2 Section 4 of our Constitution declares quite flatly that "all civil officers shall be removed from office for ... bribery."
I know that you may prefer to call it "fundraising," but you, being from the old school, probably know that my words are true. A Congressman and/or a Senator goes to Washington for exactly one reason: to represent his or her State, and the People of that State, who give him or her authority "by the consent of the governed."
If, instead of this, you find your every waking moment and effort consumed with thoughts of "fundraising," what you are actually dealing with is a combination of bribery and extortion. You feel that you cannot do anything but constantly raise funds ... and this perceived dependency puts a ring in your nose and a chain around your neck.
And the Constitution quite rightly says that, when and if that happens, you get thrown out of office on your butt and you get carted off to jail awaiting trial.
While this might superficially sound "wrong" or even "extreme," from the point-of-view of over 309 million(!) citizens in this country of ours, it is not. The conduct of "all civil officers" throughout the Federal government must be (no pun intended, yet it is apropos) ... "unimpeachable." Above reproach. Without fear or favor. Not For Sale.
It's going to take a death match to kill the system that we have evolved over the past two hundred years and that death match is going to be identical for an Amendment that, really, only takes a chunk out of its hide. (And that doesn't mean that we could or would, at Convention, throw everything out and become a place that no one could recognize.)
THE SECOND AMERICAN CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION
Personally, "I think we have an organized-crime problem, and basically nothing more."
And what we need, in order to counter it, is: "law enforcement." We already have all of the Supreme Law that we need, in Article 2 Section 4 (et al...) as it is presently written. But if we do not choose to enforce such an explicit body of text that has been with us for about 240 years, do we really believe that we would nevertheless decide to enforce it if it were Amended?
Given that there are literally hundreds of millions of individual stakeholders in this Government, all of whom would be disruptively affected by disruptive change, I suggest that we proceed by compelling both Houses of Congress to clean house. This is "High Crime," so let us call it by that name. Let us apply relentless pressure to the effect that, for every single one of you, there are more than 500 thousand of "us" who know precisely what you have done to "us," and we're not going to take it anymore.
We don't have to voice a single threatening word nor make any threatening action. They will know. First, they will squirm and deny. Then, they will cut and run. The skies above National Airport will be filled with very fast planes flying nonstop (over an oil-besotted Ocean) towards Dubai.
Yes! So glad I fanned you.
There is also the filibuster rules that are within the powers of the Senate to change. But, since both parties are sure to want to use it against the other, they will not change. The use of the filibuster is very like a constitutional crisis - but it's a crisis that can be solved without a new Convention.
Thanks for your thoughts
(I don't mean to bring you down to earth, but the only enforcement mechanism provided by our current Constitution is impeachment, as I read it. If you think that it spells out more than this, please feel free to not only name your prefered "high crimes" but also the exact elements thereof, and the specific penalties provided. The Constitution is many things, but one thing it is not is a comprehensive criminal code.)