President Stephen Salmore:

I only chose "A" because it was the least objectionable. The problem with campaign finance reform proposals is that they misstate the problem. There is not too much money for campaigning, but too little, and it is too difficult to raise. The more money and the more communication, the livelier and more thorough the debate. We should raise the contribution limits (at least enough to take into account inflation since 1974 when the $1000 limit was first imposed) and require complete and immediate disclosure of all contributions over $200. Let the voters decide if the money candidates get is unacceptable. Public financing should continue, but only as a "floor" not a ceiling. Public money should allow candidates to get into the contest and begin making their case, but it should not restrict what they can raise and spend.

President Rick Hanson, Democrat:

Both memos neglect several good ideas that I think need to be part of the public discussion: 1) Require the television networks and cable licensees to provide free media time a la the Paul Taylor project--Taylor makes a reasonable argument that since the federal government grants franchises to these media outlets, the government should not shrink from forcing their participation; and 2) A full public financing program for congressional elections should be part of any discussion, even if polling suggests that it is not approved of by most voters. In Maine, where a public awareness campaign has been waged as part of an initiative campaign, a majority of the public approves of publicly financed campaigns.

President Robert Lanza, Democrat:

Look here in D.C. for a situation where "campaign finance reform" backfired big time. D.C.'s recent campaign finance reform basically prevented challengers from raising money to challenge well-financed incumbents who have large nest eggs and access to the power of their offices (i.e. political patronage). I don't really have a problem with individuals spending their own money on Presidential or Senatorial campaigns. Any person has the right to campaign, and any person has the right to vote, or not vote, for that person. Recall that Huffington lost in the California Senate race, Ross Perot lost in the November 1992 election. Oliver North lost in the Virginia Senate race, and Steve Forbes lost this year in the Republican primary. A few years ago Rudy Boschwitz lost his Senate seat in Minnesota to Paul Wellstone, a college professor who traveled around the state campaigning from the back of a school bus. I think it is very important to remove corporate and organizational money from politics (i.e., INSIDE money, PAC money used for buying Congressional votes). However, I think that it is arrogant to believe that money can always buy the PEOPLE'S votes, because recent big money campaigns speak to the contrary.

Second and more important, only someone with as much money as Ross Perot or Steve Forbes will be capable of founding the viable third party this country desparately needs. Repealing the Buckley decision may deny the opportunity of a Ross Perot or a Steve Forbes from organizing PEOPLE into a credible third party. It takes money (OUTSIDE money) to organize people (see the AFL/CIO for details). By the way, my candidate of choice in the primary (Bill Clinton being a forgone conclusion) was Steve Forbes. No one could accuse Steve Forbes of being insincere. No one spends $25 million of their own money for no good reason. It is EASY to spend other people's money on the idea of becoming President. It is difficult to spend your own money on an idea. Also, look at how much attention Steve Forbes received from the press as opposed to, say, Arlen Specter or Alan Keyes, who was actually ARRESTED by the police for trying to attend a Presidential debate in Atlanta during the campaign (so much for Democracy). Was Forbes' money talking? Absolutely. Was he able as a result to raise issues that other Republican challengers to Bob Dole (the incumbent) couldn't raise? You bet he did. Steve Forbes was the ONLY socially liberal Republican candidate to get a hearing in the campaign. If that takes a lot of outside money, so be it. Bob Dole won the Republican nomination because of the power of the office he recently and inexplicably abandoned, not because of his campaign money, which he is now almost out of, by the way. Republicans in New York alleged that they were threatened with the blacklist by the State Republican Party if they joined the Forbes campaign. I say keep the Buckley decision in place. You need money to fight the power of government.

President Matthew Estabrook, Independent:

Frankly, neither option is ideal. Campaign finance reform as envisioned here does not address the problem; it addresses a symptom. The real problem isn't that money is corrupting the political process, but that government policy has created an environment in which companies profit from playing the system, rather than creating value for customers. Under current policies, property can be taken from one firm and reallocated to another. Politely, we call this theft a subsidy, and it serves to insulate businesses from the competition that regulates them. As long as subsidization continues, corporations (and big corporate stockholders and executives) will continue to invest millions upon millions in lobbying, both to protect from others that which is theirs, and to take that which belongs to others. Lobbying must be a good investment; companies keep doing it! The real problem is solved by reducing or eliminating subsidies. This will reduce or eliminate the incentives of companies to lobby. After all, they'd be fighting for pieces of a shrinking pie. That practical matter aside, it should be the right of each individual to commit his resources to candidates and causes he supports. The scenario ignores that spending limits themselves have caused the "Forbes/Perot" problem. Without such limits, these men would have contributed their funds to other, arguably better qualified, candidates for office. Of course, the current law does not allow that option. Limits on campaign donations should be repealed if we are committed to the individual liberty which undergirds democracy. Some argue that, without limits on campaign contributions, legislation will be "ruled by the rich," especially Big Business. They could be right, but they mistake the true problem.

President Melissa Shea, Democrat:

Both scenarios contain valid arguments, but anyone who has ever tried to pass legislation knows that having bipartisan support is the only chance of getting something like this passed.

President David Bollman, Democrat:

I am very concerned with the extent to which many Americans respond positively to absurdities like Perot's assertion that he is "buying the Presidency for the American people." The preference for millionaires who buy their seats over public financing is the result, I believe, of a lack of awareness on the part of the public of the nature of the political process. However, given the absence of a public financing bill, and given that there are a lot of good things in the current bipartisan bill, I think the bill should be supported. The lack of action to restrict the self financing of campaigns by millionaries is not guaranteed to be remedied successfully even if the attempt is made, and a reasonable improvement may be lost for nothing. Try later to deal with that problem, and hopefully get something in the way of public financing into the mix. It is some consolation that Huffington, Perot, and Forbes didn't win, and Huffington, at least, spent a significant portion of his fortune.

President N.S. Curthoys, Independent:

If Option B were not adopted, the U.S. legislature would go the way of the Roman senate: a debating chamber for the super rich, devolving power to an autocratic President at the end of the day. Why? To avoid the public blame of their priviledged status. Option A would be a start, no doubt ending there, though, mired in partisan greed. Reform has to be more than a "holding action" and campaign finance strikes to the heart of American politics. Who will choose the rulers? Is it the individual businessmen, or the individual voter? Option B would tilt America back to the voter.

President Jim Glading, Democrat:

Let's make our democracy truly representative. Instead of a privileged, rich few registering to run for office, enroll ALL citizens in a "member of Congress" pool. Then, by random selection, pick one for each state and Congressional district. Instead of viewing office as a "road to riches," we might begin to see it as a joint responsibility of all citizens--just like jury duty!

President Terry Weldon, Democrat:

The most important component of the contamination of the political process by money, from local races to the presidency, is the cost of television. No candidate can hope to be elected without TV advertising, yet the expense is incredibly high. In my state, Texas, even candidates for relatively low-level positions such as attorney general must spend millions just to stay in the race, because of the number of TV markets in which they must buy time.

If we have the right, as the owners of the airwaves, to license ownership of TV and radio stations, and to regulate their use, then we have the right to insist that a reasonable amount of time be allotted, free, to all legitimate candidates. And candidates who accept this free time should, in return, be required to use it to make on-camera statements concerning their positions and qualifications, and not be allowed to use spot-ads better suited to selling soap.

President Bert Black, Democrat:

Sweeping campaign-finance reform should have been the very first act of new President Bill Clinton on January 20, 1993. It should be the very first thing that new President Bill Clinton acts upon on January 20, 1997. All else flows from the removal of excess money from the system. It is possible to campaign without spending huge amounts of money, but it requires volunteers and involvement. Paying someone to do direct mail is easier (although more costly in terms of dollars) than having a campaign that requires personal time commitments by large numbers of people, but the latter is infinitely more satisfying politically, socially, and in building a community. I know, because as a former Congressional District Democratic-Farmer-Labor Party chair, I've been involved in both (The DFL is Minnesota's Democratic party). Sweeping reform might bring people back to realize the truth of Benjamin Franklin's prophetic words, "A republic, if you can keep it!" when asked what kind of government the U.S.A. would have.

President William F. Gregorsky, Republican:

Unfortunately the decision is quite easy. The correction is virtually impossible. It is like asking the Fox to determine the level of security required to make the Hen House inaccessible to him. I doubt if anyone could select a panel to make this decision. Perhaps it would take a panel of people selected from some other democracy to make the much needed reforms. It cannot, and will not, be executed by our present politicians.

President Steve Garvey:

If a constitutional amendment does not gain enough support, the more modest reform bill could still be had. However, the long range implications of a chance at the amendment greatly outweigh the short range political gain of signing the modest proposal. For example, the gap between rich and poor continues to increase, as does the separation between the races. These two problems, if allowed to grow, threaten our security as a successful democracy by destroying the middle class. Of course this is but one issue threatening us, and it is not even the most dire one. Corporate greed has and will do more to destroy our commitment to equality and the middle class than government can even dream about. But if our "leaders" agree to sweeping reform of one large problem--election finance reform--that could greatly help focus national sentiment on reform in general, which would then spill over into private, and thus corporate, life.

President Tito Poza, Democrat:

I found both arguments compelling, but I would rather that special interests had their current sway than see the Senate become out of reach for all but those whose net worth is 8 figures or more. Neither bill proposes what I would like to see done, which is to enact legislation forcing the media to provide free or low-cost advertising space to all candidates with a certain level of support. Real campaign-finance reform cannot be achieved while the cost of a first-class campaign is as high as it is now. Granted, such legislation has little chance of passage, but it has a much better chance than does a constitutional amendment. This reform, of course, should be enacted in addition to all reform suggested in bills A and B. And hey, while we're at it, let's hope that all voters will study issues and candidates carefully, make informed choices, and reject candidates who run attack ads. If costly 30-second spots weren't effective, then candidates wouldn't need to raise so much money. Oops, was that my cynicism showing? Guess so. Any meaningful reform will have to come from pressure from the grass roots, and as long as voters moan but don't actually organize and do anything, politicians (i.e., incumbents) will continue to do that which best promotes their re-election prospects. Campaign reform is not one such thing.

Click here to return to the Executive Decision index page.