Benjamin Franklin: Scientist, Statesman, Post Master General

[ TESTIMONY ON CAMPAIGN FINANCE REFORM LEGISLATION ]
[ THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 2, 1995 ]
 
   STATEMENT OF HON. NEWT GINGRICH, SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
This is only a portion of the entire statement.  Below is a link to access it, in its entirety.

---

.......Let me start by citing David Broder talking about our current political situation. And this is a direct quote from Broder.

The governmental system is not working because the political parties are not working. The parties have been weakened by their failure to adapt to some of the social and technological changes taking place in America, but even more, they are suffering from simple neglect, neglect by presidents and public officials but particularly neglect by the voters.

He goes on to say,

What we have is a society in which discontent, disbelief, cynicism and political inertia characterize the public mood; a country whose economy suffers from severe dislocations, whose currency is endangered, where increasing numbers of people and even giant enterprises live on the public dole, a country whose two races continue to withdraw from each other in growing physical and social isolation, a country whose major public institutions command steadily less allegiance from its citizens; whose education, transportation, law enforcement, health and sanitation systems fall short of filling their functions * * * and a country still far from reconciling its international responsibilities with its unmet domestic needs. We are in trouble, and now, unlike a decade ago, the people know it. The question is: Can we still save ourselves from deadlock without sacrificing our democracy?

Eloquent words, written in 1971 in a book called ``The Party is Over,'' which is, I think, a superb introduction to the decay of the American political party, which I think is one of the keys to re-establishing where we are going.  The reason I say that is that power has to be mediated. Somebody has to be able to bring together the long-term responsibilities of where we are going with the immediate requirement of running for office. Somebody has to say to average citizens of average wealth, with an average amount of time: Here is a rational way to organize your involvement as a citizen. And that structure has been for 200 years the
political parties, first invented by Jefferson and Madison and Burr in the origin of the longest-lived and greatest of our parties, the Democratic Party, which is the longest existing political organization in the world.
 
Because the parties have collapsed, the opportunity for middle class people to rise has gone down. When I entered the House in 1979, 24 of my fellow Members were millionaires. That number today is 61, every seventh Member of the House. That is
profoundly disturbing. The Senate is far more dominated by millionaires.

And we see around the country, on a bipartisan basis, millionaires who buy office, and that's what it is. The writing of a large enough check to hire the modern version of political bosses, hired hacks who go from state to state often using literally the same ad, simply redesigning it for the newest shot, almost always negative, almost always irresponsible, and often totally dishonest, on a bipartisan basis. And we produced a campaign system none of us can be proud of and which serves the country ill.

One minor suggestion I am going to suggest to you, and I have a number of suggestions as I go through this, but one for you to consider is that, one, we look at the degree to which incumbent protection leads to the rise of millionaires in public office.

Two, we look at the degree to which the decline of parties inhibits the rise of people of average means; and three, we consider seriously dropping all campaign contribution limits to a candidate whose opponent spends in excess of $100,000 of their own money, thereby at least evening out the field so that both candidates have equal resources.

When I say, as I did a while ago, I think it is important to understand that most modern campaign critique comes from the left, starting with the distrust of the private sector, a dislike of private resources, an assumption that money from the state is good, that money from individual citizens is bad, and a belief that it is the campaigns that matter, not the larger system of the parties.

One of the results has been federally funded campaigning, which had exactly the result conservative theorists would have suggested, that is, if you make money available people will find a way to get there.
 
My favorite example is Lenora Fulani. Lenora Fulani--because what happens is you have sort of a nut class of politics. Lenora Fulani has received $3.5 million from the taxpayers in the 1984, 1988 and 1992 campaigns because she has found an industry.  Her industry is to get enough people to support her to be eligible for tax-paid funds so she can then earn a living getting tax-paid funds. It is a terrific racket.
 

Lyndon LaRouche received matching funds, according to a George Will column of June 4th, 1995, even while he was in jail. So what happens is when you set up a socialist model of government-paid campaigning, people learn how to get on the dole. The dole this time is not welfare. This is political welfare. So I would say that this is part of why I think Common Cause has been at a dead end, frankly.
 
What we need to look at is that candidates and parties need money to introduce themselves to the public and yet today we have an inappropriate system of finding the money.
 
Frank Sorauf, a professor at the University of Minnesota, wrote a very interesting paper in 1987 in which he compared the
mass media of the United States today as a version of the progressive political outlook which dominated American society
from the 1890s to the 1920s. The progressives saw the American public as being decent people, yet prey for rapacious special interests intent on buying elections and corrupting the political process.

This is what Professor Sorauf wrote in the Political Science Quarterly of spring of 1987.

[C]ontemporary investigative reporters are in many ways the grandchildren of the Progressive muckrakers. * * * Very few aspects of the American political process reinforce the Progressive world view as effectively as the American way of campaign finance. Its cash is an easy measure of influence and its PACs are perfect embodiments of the special, vested, or selfish interests.
 
It is indeed usual for newspapers to define PACs as, ``special interest groups,''. If one makes the simple assumption that public officials defer to their campaign contributors more easily than they do to their party, their own values or their own voting constituency, one has the perfect scenario for the triumph of the wealthy special interests over the will of electoral majorities and the general or public interest.

That summarizes the guilty-until-proven-innocent approach that candidates are confronted with in today's highly charged
atmosphere. Sorauf illustrates how this inherent bias affects campaign finance coverage, often resulting in sloppy and
inaccurate stories.
 
That is, ABC News owned by Disney is not a special interest. So a multimillionaire broadcaster on ABC News being
given free access to the American people doesn't represent political power. On the other hand, a thousand dollars written by the broadcaster's spouse is political power. It is simply a nonsensical socialist analysis based on hatred of the free enterprise system, and I think is fundamentally false.
 
The three networks spent $1.1 billion on news in one year, with profits of nearly $200 million. By comparison, the total spent in the 1992 presidential campaign is $550 million on all sides. The Disney/ABC merger by itself is worth $19 billion.
 
So when we talk about money and politics, let's put it contextually where it is. Campaign spending rose from $109,000 per congressional race during 1978, the first time I won, to $440,000 last year. That represents about $3 per eligible voter. It is less than $1 per citizen in the district. And one of the greatest myths of modern politics is that campaigns are too expensive. The political process, in fact, is underfunded; it is not overfunded, the political process. But I would emphasize far more the money in the political system--I mean in the parties............

---

Optional:  Click Here to view the entire speech and ensuing debate.
                        You may also view other speeches from this congressional hearing.

 

Benjamin Franklin: Scientist, Statesman, Post Master General

Copyright © 2000 Stevens Institute of Technology, Center for Improved Engineering and Science Education, All Rights Reserved