Capitol Journal - Political Ads
Capitol Journal - Political Ads
Back in the studio Mark Sheilds segues to interviews conducted earlier with Senator George Mitchell (D - Maine) and Senator Mitch McConnell (R - Kentucky) in a Congressional office, they discuss public campaign financing, campaign spending limits, and tv as a medium of communication between voters and candidates. Campaign reform.
Capitol Journal - Political Ads
Mark Shields intro to interview. Some of the ferocious fighting for all on the campaign trail and on TV will be for control of the United States Senate in Republican hands now since 1981. We talked with two senators who will the architects and engineers of their party s national strategies: Senator George Mitchell of Maine, Chairman of the Democratic Senate Campaign committee and Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, a member of the National Republican Senatorial Committee.
Capitol Journal - Political Ads
Mark Shields. Senator McConnell what about that bloodhound spot? Are you going to tell your children that in 1984 that s what got you to the United States Senate? Senator Mitch McConnell (R - Kentucky) Well it s certainly what made the people of Kentucky get interested in the race, Mark. And what typically happens in a challenger and incumbent contest is it stays asleep - in other words people usually don t pay much attention. They pay attention to the incumbent and so they vote for him. The bloodhounds got people in Kentucky interested in the contest, interested in what I had to say and to the extent that it tuned people into the contest I suppose it was a major factor in my victory.
Capitol Journal - Political Ads
Mark Shields. Senator Mitchell looking at contemporary campaigns you re involved as Chairman of the Democratic Senate Campaign Committee. We talked to Congressman Zschau, Republican nominee for the Senate of California, he told us he had 500 meetings with major contributors to raise the two million dollars necessary for television budget. What about this money in politics? I know the Democrats are consistently out spent so therefore they complain a lot. Senator George Mitchell (D - Maine) The cost of American political campaigns is excessive. I call it obscene. It is corrupting the process and we ought to change the system. We ought to have campaign spending limits, reasonable enough to give challengers a chance to become known. And the only way you can do that now legally is though some form of public financing. We elect Presidents in that manner. I know of no American who favors repealing the law as to Presidential elections and going back to the old days when people carried sacks with hundreds of thousands of dollars in the back door of the White House. Nobody favors that. If it s good enough to elect Presidents - if it s important enough for that election, than why isn t it good enough for Senators?
Capitol Journal - Political Ads
Mark Shields. Senator McConnell? Senator Mitch McConnell (R - Kentucky) George s problem is that they aren t doing very well in the business of attracting private contributions. There s nothing corrupting about the current system. All of the contributors are reported. There is a limit on what any particular pack or individual can give. And I think the principal Democratic campaign is that they don t have enough support out there among contributors, not only major but small contributors to keep up. Mark Shields. Ed Zschau was pretty disarming in his candor. I mean he confessed that 500 meetings with major givers doesn t leave much time for coffee klatches and block parties. Now that is a problem, isn t it? When you have to spend that much time raising money? Senator Mitch McConnell (R - Kentucky) Well I think coffee klatches are almost irrelevant in any state of any size in particular in a place like California. You could have those kinds of. Mark Shields. In gives you a chance to meet ordinary voters who are worried about meeting their mortgage, not just people who can give you a thousand dollars. Senator Mitch McConnell (R - Kentucky) Well the problem is you re going to have to communicate with a mass of people out there if you re running a state-wide race, particularly in a state like California, but even in a state like Kentucky. I could have had coffees everyday for the rest of my life and it would have had no impact on the election. You have to deal with the means of communication that are relevant in 1986 and that everyone else is using to get their message across. Politicians have to do the same thing and that s costly.
Capitol Journal - Political Ads
Senator George Mitchell (D - Maine). The Presidential system is voluntary. Ronald Reagan voluntarily chose to participate in the public financing of Presidential campaigns. And the question still remains, which has not been answered and that is if it s good enough to elect Presidents why isn t it good enough in Senate races? Do not Senators vote on important issues presented by the President? I think it is a crucial issue in American politics. Not only because Democrats trail in fundraising, we always have. That s nothing new. But the fact of the matter it is what is important to the people and I think the system is not a proper one now. Mark Shields. From 1954 to 1980 the Democrats controlled the Congress. Mark Shields. I don t recall a public financing plan being vetoed by anybody in the White House at that time. Senator George Mitchell (D - Maine). In 1974, a democratic controlled congress passed a law with campaign spending limits which the United States Supreme Court - in a weakly reasoned, poorly written, one of the worst opinions I ve ever read - declared unconstitutional. In 1979, the issue arose again and Democrats failed to meet the test. We were then in what was perceived to be a position of comparative advantage. Democrats were unable to see beyond their own narrow interest and act in the public interest. The Republicans are in exactly the same position now and they are acting in the same short-sighted, wrong way that the Democrats did in the 1970 s. And the real test of the integrity of the Democratic Party is this: if we regain control of the Senate in this election and win the Presidency in 1988 will we then have the vision and the courage to do what we should have done in the 1970s but failed to do?
Capitol Journal - Political Ads
Senator Mitch McConnell (R - Kentucky). Spending limits will only make it more difficult for any incumbent to ever lose and I think that s a pretty sad commentary. It s hard enough for a challenger now. I m here to tell you I m the only Republican challenger that won a Senate race in 1984. But if you put a spending limit on, which you have to do with public funding, treat both candidates the same regardless of whether they ve made a major effort to go out there and get support. I mean the incumbent will almost never lose and I don t think that s good for the system. Senator George Mitchell (D - Maine). Well the only spending limit that now exists is in Presidential races and in 1980 Senator Mitch McConnell (R - Kentucky). there a very significant difference between being one of the Presidential nominees where the focus if going to be on you. There is no problem with identity. Both candidates are going to get well known. In a Senate race in Maine or Kentucky there are significant differences. Mark Shields. The limits there have not helped the incumbents. The first two times the incumbents were defeated in public financing. Senator George Mitchell (D - Maine). That s exactly my point. Senator Mitch McConnell (R - Kentucky). I just think the Presidential race is so drastically different from a race for the Senate.
Capitol Journal - Political Ads
Mark Shields. Senator McConnell, between now and November, American voters are going to be bombarded with television commercials - bunting, balloons and bands - how would you, as someone who has been a successful candidate, what would be your advice to us voters to sort through all of these? How can we tell a candidate s values, vision, worth by what that candidate puts on television? Or can we? Senator Mitch McConnell (R - Kentucky). Not all 30 second commercials are slick. Some of the most effective commercials I ve seen - done by David Garth for example - are very straight forward, issue orientated. I think it s wrong to assume that just because a candidate has a television consultant or just because he runs thirty second spots he s going to run slick ads. If I were a voter I would look at them very skeptically and try to weigh the messages.
Capitol Journal - Political Ads
Mark Shields. Should we hold the candidate as accountable for the television spots they put on as we do for a vote they cast or a speech they give? Senator Mitch McConnell (R - Kentucky). The voters do that. Senator George Mitchell (D - Maine). As indeed they should. Television is an important part of American life. Indeed I don t think any of us effectively understand how important it is. We re not going to go backward. We will receive information through television. Voters should receive that, except that in a way that the important point that it should not be the exclusive means of information that a voter has upon which to base a judgment. That there be other means: the newspapers, personal visits. Try to understand what the candidate s voting record is - not just the views presented in thirty second ads. If that s part of the information available to the voter, a responsible judgment still can be made. If it s the exclusive means of information - thirty second ads, we will not get informed decisions.
Capitol Journal - Political Ads
Senator Mitch McConnell (R - Kentucky). In large states with huge numbers of people, a television will be even more dominant. In places like New Hampshire where there are a small number of people - you ll have television, you ll also have individual voter contact. You can t ask a candidate to do what s not possible. If the state has 35 million people in it, you re simply not going to be able to meet very many of them. Mark Shields. Senator Mitch McConnell, Senator George Mitchell: Thank you both.