Ask the Scholar
Document scope · 1 page
Scholar
Ask about this object, its catalog metadata, its source description, or the page inventory.
For page-specific OCR and visual context, open one of the page chats.
Scholar Source Context
Document identity
localId
55034310
label
Materials to Mondale
core
doc
dtoType
document
citationUrl
pageCount
1
Source metadata
id
55034310
sourceUrl
contentType
document
title
Materials to Mondale
citationUrl
collections
Records of the Office of Speechwriting (Clinton Administration)
Laura Capps' Files
imageCount
1
hasImages
yes
source
import
hasTranscription
no
Source extras
naId
55034310
levelOfDescription
fileUnit
otherTitles
42-t-7431954-20160194F-005-016-2017
recordType
description
ocrSource
nara-archive
Single page context
seq
1
pageIndex
0
type
document
mediaId
e71d2deb55492a40
ocrText
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
March 13, 1997
MEMORANDUM FOR VICE PRESIDENT MONDALE
FROM:
MICHAEL WALDMAN
MV
Deputy Assistant to the President and
Director of Speechwriting
SUBJECT:
INFORMATION ON CAMPAIGN FINANCE REFORM
Again, we're delighted that you will be taking on this challenge I have worked on this
issue for nearly 15 years, and I truly believe that your participation and that of Sen. Kassebaum
will help break the cynicism that surrounds this issue. We will do whatever we can to bring you
up to speed.
Attached is some initial information on current campaign finance reform proposals:
A summary of the McCain-Feingold bill, from Sen. Feingold's' office. (This describes
the Senate bill. The House version, introduced by Reps. Chris Shays and Marty Meehan,
is slightly different; in particular, it limits PAC contributions but does not ban them. We
have urged that the Senate version also give up the absolute PAC ban, which, among
other things, is unconstitutional.)
A transcript of the President's speech on political reform that he delivered to the Paul
Taylor/Walter Cronkite "free TV" group.
A summary of the "free TV time" proposal that the President made the other day.
A brief history some recent political reform measures that have passed the Congress.
As Rahm Emanuel probably mentioned, we are working with the longstanding coalition
that is pushing for reform (Common Cause, Public Citizen, religious groups, AARP), as well as
with a new group founded by investor Jerry Kohlberg that seeks to involve businesspeople to
support reform. They are mobilizing to call on Congress to meet the President's challenge,
which he issued in the State-of-the-Union Address, to pass legislation by July 4. One of the main
challenges for this effort is to broaden the coalition beyond the "usual suspects" who have
supported reform but who have not succeeded in passing it.
I'll send more material to you tomorrow, as well as some suggested remarks. I can be
reached at the White House at (202)456-2272; at home, at (202)364-4283; or I can be paged
through the White House operator (202)456-1414.
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
MEMORANDUM FOR VICE PRESIDENT MONDALE
FROM: LAURA CAPPS
Office of Speechwriting
RE: Tomorrow's event
Per your conversation with Michael Waldman, I have attached a series of questions and
answers about the campaign finance reform effort. Please contact Michael if you have further
questions.
Tomorrow's schedule is as follows:
Please arrive at the Northwest gate by 8:15 and proceed to the Blue Room. If you will be
accompanied by staff, please have them contact me this evening (h: 202.332.0263).
At 8:30 there will be a briefing with the Senator Kassebaum Baker and White House
staff. At 8:45 you will meet briefly with the Vice President.
At 9:00 the announcement will be made in the foyer of the State Dinning Room. The
Vice President will speak first and introduce Senator Kassebaum Baker, who will introduce you.
The press will be there, but no questions will be taken. After the Vice-President departs, the
press will be escorted out and you and Senator Kassebaum Baker are encouraged to meet
informally with the members of the audience. The audienc will consist of the co-sponsors of the
legislation, reform coalition members, and foundation representatives.
At 9:45 you and Senator Kassebaum Baker will meet with the President in the Residence
for 15 minutes or so. Afterwards, subsequent meetings (with the audience and other staff) may
follow, depending on your time and interest.
We're looking forward to it.
Thank you,
for Cupr
Laura Capps
OP- ED ON CAMPAIGN FINANCE REFORM
Walter F. Mondale and Nancy Kassebaum Baker
After a combined half century in public office, we thought we had retired from public
service. But we agreed wholeheartedly when President Clinton asked us to co-chair a campaign
finance reform education and awareness project. We accepted the challenge to make the case for
campaign reform because we adamantly believe there is no issue of greater importance for our
nation's future.
It is easy to be cynical, to assume that this year, as before, ultimately nothing will happen.
But if people of goodwill in and out of public life speak up for reform now, with one voice, this
year can be the year we break the debilitating cycle of fundraising that continues to afflict our
politics.
Two decades since significant reform of the campaign finance laws passed through
Congress, those laws have been overwhelmed by a flood of money -- $2 billion in the last election.
With every election, the problem has grown worse and worse. These laws are now riddled with
loopholes and legal mumbo jumbo that average Americans rightly consider outrageous.
The cost to our democracy is real; it is found in many areas. Candidates and officeholders
spend far too much time simply raising the funds needed to run for office. Far too many good
people decline to seek office altogether because of the high hurdle of fundraising. Most
important, the rising rivers of money that flow into campaigns are an assault on public trust.
Lincoln said, "with public trust everything is possible; without it, nothing is possible." We have
no more important cause than the restoration of public confidence in the integrity and
responsiveness of their public officers.
Much attention is being focused on campaign contributions in the last election, and rightly
so. Our plea for basic reform is not intended to silence the debate, and our effort should not be
viewed as a diversion. Where legitimate questions exist, they should be investigated and
resolved. We are not trying to change the subject, we are adding a subject, namely, how to
reform campaign finance.
The continuing controversy cannot become an excuse for inaction. We must move
forward on legislation to make constructive, vitally needed changes in the existing system.
The best chance for reform is the bipartisan legislation introduced in the Senate by John
McCain and Russell Feingold, and in the House by Christopher Shays and Martin Meehan.
This measure will achieve significant reforms. It will curb the role of money in elections
and reduce the role of special interests. It will offer free television time to candidates who limit
their spending. It will end bundling and all contributions from people who are not citizens. And it
will end the so called "soft money" loophole through which more than a quarter billion dollars
escaped legal restrictions in the last campaign.
Can we really expect reform to succeed? Perhaps the greatest obstacle is the loss of faith
among voters that anything constructive can come from new laws and new standards. Two
decades ago, citizens expected that public action could be effective. These reforms worked for a
while, but the aggressive chase for money opened new loopholes and dismantled the public
protections against the abuse of money in campaigns. In turn, this feeds the very cynicism which
undermines the needed public urgency for action.
The existing campaign finance system dismays people from all walks of life, from all
political perspectives. Citizens know that our government cannot work in their interest if it is
constantly in thrall to narrow interests. Our mission must be to connect the dots -- to show that
reform is possible, and why it is needed, if we are to renew our democracy.
This critical window of opportunity will close unless the American people believe in the
importance and urgency of reform. It is better to light a candle than to curse the darkness. This
year we have an opportunity to light that candle.
ENDING BUSINESS AS USUAL
IN WASHINGTON
"The fact is, organized interests have too much power in the halls of government. These
influence groups too often promote their own interest at the expense of the public interest. Too
often they operate in secret. Too often they have special privileges ordinary Americans don't
even know exist We have an historic opportunity to renew our democracy and strengthen our
country. If we truly believe in a government that puts ordinary Americans ahead of the powerful
and privileged, then we must act and act now."
President Bill Clinton
February 17, 1996
A Record of Accomplishment:
Over the past four years, working with both parties in Congress, President Clinton
achieved a significant number of reforms to make our government respond to ordinary citizens.
The President made voting easier for more than 11 million Americans by creating more
accessible voter registration locations by enacting the National Voter Registration Act
("Motor-Voter"). The Motor-Voter law has already created the greatest expansion in the
voter registration rolls since the 19th century.
The President fought for and signed into law the Lobbying Disclosure Act. The Act is
the first overhaul of lobbying rules in 50 years and requires lobbyists to disclose whom
they work for and eliminates loopholes that allow lobbying organizations to avoid.
In the 1995 State of the Union Address, President Clinton challenged the Congress to ban
gifts, meals, travel and entertainment from lobbyists. The Congress subsequently passed
the gift ban on November 16th, 1995.
The President supported and signed the Congressional Accountability Act to ensure that
the same laws apply to Congress as to the rest of America.
In 1993, President Clinton proposed, and Congress passed, legislation ending the tax-
deductibility of lobbying expenses, the "lobbyist loophole" which had allowed
corporations and others to deduct the cost of their lobbying.
The President imposed the strictest Administration ethics guidelines ever, including a
five-year ban on top officials lobbying their former agencies and a lifetime ban against
lobbying for foreign governments.
The President pushed for and signed the line-item veto legislation, which significantly
enhances the presidential authority to eliminate wasteful spending by allowing the
President to cancel wasteful special interest projects that benefit narrow interests. The
line-item veto can help the President close the door on business as usual in Washington
by cutting pet projects that sneak into the budget year after year. With this line-item veto,
the President will have a valuable new tool to ensure that our public resources are being
put to the best possible uses.
The President enacted the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act to restrict Congress from
passing on new mandates to state and local governments without paying for them.
President Clinton has stood up to special interests, such as the National Riffle Association
and the tobacco industry, loosening their tight hold on our legislative process. The
President broke six years of congressional gridlock on anti-crime legislation and defeated
the gun lobby by enacting a ban on assault weapons and the Brady Law.
The President signed the Presidential Executive Office Accountability Act (PEOAA),
which ensures that the Executive Office of the President lives under the same laws as the
rest of the country -- this is the White House analog to the Congressional Accountability
Act.
A History Of Fighting For Real Campaign Finance Reform
There is one major reform that still must be enacted: campaign finance reform.
1992
Campaign Finance Reform Proposal. In the 1992 campaign, Governor Clinton
proposed spending limits, free TV time, PAC limits and a ban on soft money.
The current McCain-Feingold and Shays-Meehan legislation mirrors this
proposal.
1993-1994
Campaign Finance Reform Plan. The President and the congressional
Democratic leadership proposed a reform plan that also included partial public
funding for congressional candidates.
1995
Bipartisan CFR Commission. In June of 1995, the President agreed with
Speaker Gingrich to create a bipartisan political reform commission. The
President named John Gardner and Doris Kearns Goodwin to launch the
commission, but the proposed commission was rebuffed by the Speaker.
1996 - 1997 McCain-Feingold/Shays-Meehan. In his 1996 State of the Union Address, the
President announced his support of the bipartisan campaign finance reform bill.
He repeated his support throughout 1996. In the 1997 State of the Union Address
the President challenged Congress to pass this legislation by July 4, 1997.
THE WHITE HOUSE
Office of the Press Secretary
For Immediate Release
March 11, 1997
REMARKS BY THE PRESIDENT
IN ADDRESS TO THE CONFERENCE ON FREE TV AND POLITICAL REFORM
The National Press Club
11:12 A.M. EST
THE PRESIDENT: Thank you. What a gift. (Laughter.) Thank you, Walter Cronkite.
Thank you, Paul Taylor, for your passion and your commitment. Thank you, Senator McCain,
Chairman Hundt, Ann McBride, Becky Cain. And thank you, Barry Diller, for what you have
said about this important issue.
I am delighted to have the chance to come here today, and I thank the sponsors of this
event.
Again, let me say that I participated in the last election in the free television offered by
the networks, thanks to the efforts of Paul Taylor and Walter Cronkite and the members of the
Straight Talk Coalition. Senator Dole and I were given a unique opportunity to talk directly to
the voters -- no gimmicks, no flashy graphics, a full minute or two at a time. And I really
enjoyed it. I put a lot of effort into those opportunities, and I'm sure that Senator Dole did as
well. I felt that they were a great gift.
And Walter and I had a talk backstage before we came out about how it might even be
done better in the next round of elections. Maybe my opinions will carry more weight on such
matters since I never expect to run again for anything. And I do believe that the free television
was a very important thing. I think if it could be done, as we were discussing, at the same time
every evening on a given network, and back to back so that the candidates can be seen in a
comparative context, I think it would be even more valuable.
We have to do some things to improve the way our political system works at election
time and the way it communicates, or its leaders communicate, to people all year round. This
should not be surprising to anyone. The Founding Fathers understood that we were an
experiment. We're still around after all of these years because we have relished the idea that we
are an experiment, that America is a work in progress, that we're constantly in the making. We
always have to change.
A lot of good things have happened to expand participation in the political system from
the time we were a new nation, when only white male property owners could vote, and we have
to make some more changes now. But if you look at the changes which have been made in the
last 200 years, we should be hopeful.
Television has the power to expand the franchise or to shrink the franchise. Indeed, that
is true of all means of communications and all media. We know that television is a profound
and powerful force; we know that we don't fully understand all of its implications -- even what
you said, Walter, we don't really know what the connection is between television and a
diminished voter turnout. It could be because there is a poll on television every night that tells
people about the election, so some people think that there's no point in their voting, because the
person they're for is going to win anyway, or the person they're for can't win anyway.
We need to think about that, and that's not the subject of this meeting, but we need to --
we really need -- all of us need more information, more research, about why people vote and why
they don't vote. There was a very -- I've only seen one survey, done I believe for the Democratic
Leadership Council, of the nonvoters. It's a poll that doesn't pay off. You know, it was done,
after the election, of the nonvoters. But it was very interesting, and some of the findings were
quite counterintuitive about why people did or didn't vote. But I would urge those of you who
are interested in it to get that, look at it, and think about what new work could be done
to look into that.
Today, we want to talk about whether the medium of free television could be used to
diminish the impact of excessive money in politics and about whether it could still be used,
therefore, to reform our system in a way that makes it better, and ultimately that leads to better
decisions for the American people. It is now commonplace -- everybody will tell you -- that
campaigns cost too much and it takes too much time to raise the money, and the more money you
raise from a larger number of people, the more questions will be raised about that.
Major party committees spent over three times as much in this last election cycle as four
years before. And that doesn't count the third party expenditures, both the genuinely independent
third party committees and those that weren't really independent although they claim to be.
Spending in Congressional campaigns has risen six-fold in the last two decades. That's over
three times the rate of inflation.
The biggest reason for this is the rise in the cost of television. But, of course, there is
also now more money being spent on mail, on telephoning, on radio and other print advertising
as well.
In 1972, candidates spent $25 million for political ads; in 1996, $400 million.
Presidential campaigns now routinely spend two-thirds or more of their money on paid ads;
Senate candidates, 42 percent of their money on television; House races, about a third.
2
Interestingly enough, that's often because there is no single television market which just overlaps
a House district and often the cost is prohibitive, particularly in the urban districts. But you
get the drift, it's the same everywhere.
We are the only major democracy in the world where candidates have to raise larger and
larger sums of money simply to communicate with voters through the medium that matters most.
Every other major democracy offers candidates or parties free air time to speak to voters, and we
can plainly do better, building on the big first step urged by this group in 1996. We have an
obligation to restore our campaign finance system to a system that has the broad confidence of
the American people but also of the American press that comments on it. In order to do that,
television has to be part of the solution. I have said before and I will say again, everybody who
has been involved in this system has to take responsibility for it and for changing it.
Those of us in public life know better than anybody else what the demands of prevailing
in the present system are, and those who control the airwaves understand it well also. First and
most fundamentally, I came here to support Senator McCain. We have to take advantage of this
year to pass campaign finance reform. The campaign finance laws are two decades out of date.
They have been overtaken by events, by dramatic changes in the nature and cost of campaigns
and the flood of money that has followed them. The money has been raised and spent in ways
that simply could not have been imagined when the people who fashioned the last campaign
finance law in Congress did it.
They did the best they could, and I will say again, I believe that they did a good thing
and that that law did improve the financing of our campaigns and restored a level of confidence
to our politics and made things better. It is simply that time has changed and we need new
changes to reflect the things that have happened in the last 20 years.
It will not be easy to do this, but the situation is far from hopeless. After all, the first
thing I want to say is, the American people do care about this, and our politics, I think, in terms
of traditional honesty, is getting better, not worse. I have asked over a dozen people just in the
last two years who have been living in Washington for the last 30 years, who have been in
politics -- the most recent person I asked was Senator Dole -- whether politics was more or less
honest today than it was 30 years ago, and all 12 or 15 -- however many I asked -- all gave the
same answer. They said it's more honest today than it was 30 years ago. I think that's where we
have to start.
It is important to put this in the proper perspective if you want people in Congress to
vote to change it. They cannot be asked to admit that they are doing something that they're not,
or that they are participating in dragging the country down the drain, because anybody who
knows what went on 30 years ago and what goes on today would have to say that the system is
still better than it was then.
On the other hand, anybody who denied that, at an exponential pace, changes are
3
occurring which imperil the integrity of the electoral process and the financing of campaigns
would also be badly amiss.
The second thing I'd like to say is, we should be hopeful because we have seen over the
last four years in other contexts real bipartisan processes to improve the way politics works -- not
in campaign finance reform, but there was bipartisan support for the motor voter law, for the
lobby disclosure overhaul that was the first one in 50 years, in which Congress banned meals and
gifts from lobbyists to lawmakers but also required much more disclosure. And that's the most
important thing. When you get 100 percent disclosure of an area where there hasn't been any
before, then that offers all of you in the press the opportunity to communicate to the American
people what the activities of lobbyists are and to let them and you draw your own conclusions in
terms of the results produced by decision-makers. We've required Congress to live under the
same that they impose upon the private sector.
Every single one of these things has happened in the last four years with broad,
bipartisan support. So I think it is very, very important that we recognize this will not happen
unless there is bipartisan support. But there is evidence that if the environment is right, if the
support is deep enough, if the calls are strong enough and positive enough, we can get this kind
of change.
Now, let me also say that I think it's important to make this point, because I see all these
surveys that say that campaign finance reform is important to people, but if you rank it on a list
of 10 things, it will always rank 10th behind balancing the budget, education and all this. That
can be used by politicians as an excuse, if you will, not to deal with it. They say, well, look at
all these surveys. Campaign finance reform -- sure, people like it -- but it's not as important to
them as whether we'll have national standards for reading and math, for example -- one of my
passions.
What we have to do is to make a connection between the two for the American people.
What we have to argue is, yes, we really need to be up here doing the public's business. We need
to be balancing the budget, improving education, reforming welfare, expanding health care
coverage to children who don't have it, passing a juvenile justice reform -- the kinds of things
that I'm passionately interested in.
But having the right kind of campaign finance reform system and having the right kind
of straight talk on television and having issues be more -- elections be more issue-oriented and
having the debates of both sides heard clearly by all people and increasing voter interest and
voter turnout -- all these things will increase the likelihood that this laundry list of good things
will be done and will be done in better fashion than would otherwise be the case. I think it is
very important that those of you who care about this make this connection because that's how to
build broad and deep support for this endeavor.
It seems to me that we do have an historic opportunity to pass campaign finance reform.
4
And I think the public owes a lot of gratitude to Senator McCain and Senator Feingold and
Congressman Shays and Congressman Meehan and all of their supporters for the legislation they
have offered. It is real and tough. It would level the playing field and reduce the role of big
money in politics. It would set voluntary limits on campaign spending and ban soft money, all
corporate contributions, and the very large individual ones. It would restrict the role of political
action committees and lobbyists and make needed reforms within the confines of the constitution
as defined by existing Supreme Court case law.
In all these ways, it would set ceilings on money in politics and, just as important, it
would also provide a floor. And I think that is very important -- it would also provide a floor.
You actually have some members in Congress who come from districts where there's a very low
per capita income, for example, who are very afraid of campaign finance reform because they're
afraid, among their own constituents, they'll never be able to raise enough money in their district
to compete the first time a multi-millionaire runs against them.
So the law has to give a floor. And McCain-Feingold does that by giving candidates free
air time to talk directly to the voters if they observe the spending limits of the law. And we need
to emphasize that any ceiling law should have a floor to guarantee that people have their say and
are heard. It gives candidates deeply discounted rates for the purchase of time if they observe the
limits of the law.
In all these ways, it will level the playing field, giving new voices a chance to be heard
and being fair to both parties.
I have supported the idea of free TV time for many years. When the Vice President was
in Congress, he actually introduced legislation to require it. It was first proposed by President
Kennedy in 1962. It has been around long enough. We now tried it in the last election more than
ever before, and we know that it advances the public interest.
In my State of the Union address, I asked Congress to pass the McCain-Feingold bill by
July the 4th, the day we celebrate the birth of our democracy. I pledge to you that I will continue
to work with members of both parties to do this. I will be mustering more support out in the
country, and that will be announced over the next few weeks, for this endeavor.
We have to use the present intense interest in this, as well as the controversy over
fundraising in the last election and all the publicity on it, as a spur to action. We cannot let it
become what it is in danger of becoming, which is an excuse for inaction.
And that again is something that I challenge all of you on. Do not let the controversies
become an excuse to do nothing and to wallow around in it. Use it as a spur to changing the
system, because until you change the system, you will continue to have controversies over the
amount -- the sheer amount of money that is raised in these elections.
5
The second thing I'd like to discuss is what Walter talked about in some detail, and that
is how broadcasters can meet their public interest obligations in this era. Ever since the FCC
was created, broadcasters have had a compact with the public: in return for the public airwaves,
they must meet public interest obligations. The bargain has been good for the industry and good
for the public.
Now, startling new technologies are shaking and remaking the world of
telecommunications. They've opened wider opportunities for broadcasters than ever before, but
they also offer us the chance to open wider vistas for our democracy as well.
The move from analog signals to digital ones will give each broadcaster much more
signal capacity than they have today. The broadcasters asked Congress to be given this new
access to the public airwaves without charge. I believe, therefore, it is time to update the
broadcasters' public interest obligations to meet the demands of the new times and the new
technological realities. I believe broadcasters who receive digital licenses should provide free air
time for candidates, and I believe the FCC should act to require free air time for candidates.
The telecommunications revolution can help to transform our system so that once again
voters have the loudest voice in our democracy. Free time for candidates can help free our
democracy from the grip of big money. I hope all of you will support that. There are many ways
that this could be done. Many of you here have put forward innovative plans. I believe the free
time should be available to all qualified federal candidates. I believe it should give candidates a
chance to talk directly to the voters without gimmicks or intermediaries. Because campaign
finance reform is so important, I believe it should be available especially to candidates who limit
their own spending. It is clear under the Supreme Court decision that this can be done, and I
believe that is how it should be done.
Candidates should be able to talk to voters based on the strength of their ideas, not the
size of their pocketbooks, and all voters should know that no candidate is kept from running
simply because he or she cannot raise enormous amounts of funds.
Last month, the Vice President announced that we would create an independent advisory
committee of experts, industry representatives, public interest advocates, and others to
recommend what steps to take. Before I came over here today, I signed an executive order
creating that committee. The balanced panel I will appoint will advise me on ways we can move
forward and make a judgment as to what the new public interest obligations of broadcasters
might be. But today, let us simply agree on the basic premise. In 1997, for broadcasters, serving
the public should mean enhancing our democracy.
Finally, let me challenge the broadcasters as well. Broadcasters are not the problem, but
broadcasting must be the solution. The step the broadcasters took in this last election, as I have
said over and over again in other forums, with the encouragement of Straight Talk for TV, was a
real breakthrough. Now I ask broadcasters to follow up on this experiment in democracy, and
6
I'm especially pleased that a leader in the industry, Barry Diller, has challenged his colleagues to
open up the airwaves to candidates. He has made clear -- forcefully and very publicly -- that he
and all of his colleagues have an obligation to society. And his presence here today makes it
clear that he is willing to assume the mantle of leadership. But surely there are others -- I know
there are -- who will gladly join in and take up this cause as well.
There are many questions about political reform. Many skeptics will look at all
proposed reform measures and ask whether they'll work and whether there will be unintended
consequences. The truth is that they will work and there will be unintended consequences.
But if we use that for an excuse not to change, no good change in this country would
ever have come about. There will always be something we cannot foresee -- that's what makes
life interesting and keeps us all humble -- but that must not be an excuse for our refusing to act in
this area. We know -- we know when we work to expand our democracy, when you give
people a greater voice and advocates of all political views a firm platform upon which to stand,
we are moving forward as a nation. By passing campaign finance reform, by renewing the
compact between broadcasters and the public to better serve in this new era, we can do that
again.
And I will say again, I will do all I can on both these fronts -- on campaign finance
reform legislation and on requiring free availability of the airwaves to public candidates. We
need your support for both, and we need broader and more intense public support. And again I
say, that has to be built by demonstrating to the public that this is not an inside-the-beltway
exercise and both parties trying to find ways to undermine each other, but a necessary way of
opening our democracy so that we can better, more quickly, and more profoundly address the
real challenges facing the American people in their everyday lives.
These two steps will help, and together I hope we can make them this year. Thank you
very much. (Applause.)
Q
Mr. President.
THE PRESIDENT: Hello, Sarah.
Q
I want to know you said that you would not have been reelected
THE PRESIDENT: -- I think -- probably I might have been, because I'm the President
and a President has unusual access to the public. And you have the presidential debates, which
are unique in terms of their viewership and their potential impact. But I believe that if you just
look at the races for Congress and the number of votes that changed just in the last five days, and
how the votes were counted when the votes changed and the movement changed, there is no
question that the amount of money deployed in an intelligent way can have a profound impact on
the outcome of these elections. And what you want to do is to make sure that everybody has the
7
(
same fair chance at the voters and nobody has an excessive chance. And given the Supreme
Court cases, the way the McCain-Feingold bill is drawn up, plus the effort to get more free air
time, are the best responses to overcome the undue influence of excessive money.
Thank you very much. (Applause.)
END
11:35 A.M.
8
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
OFFICE OF
SPEECHWRITING
Phone number (202) 456-2777
Fax number (202) 456-5709
TO:
Vice President mondale
FROM: Michael Waldman
RECEIVER FAX AND PHONE NUMBER: 612 340 2644
NUMBER OF PAGES (INCLUDING COVER SHEET): 19
COMMENTS:
***WARNING***
UNAUTHORIZED USE OF THESE MATERIALS IS SUBJECT TO FEDERAL
PROSECUTION
To: Jan Volevich
From: Laura Capps
re: Concord Event
Attached is information regarding a Concord Campaign Finance Reform event being planned by
Representative Martin Meehan. It is intended to be a launching of the "Scholars for Campaign
Reform" committee.
The scholars would like to be affiliated with the effort that Senator Kassebaum Baker and
Ambassador Mondale are leading.
I know the term affiliation is loose and would have to be defined more specifically. However,
would Senator Kassebaum Baker agree to this affiliation in principle?
Please let me know. I can put you in touch with Dan Manatt of Congressman Meehan's office if
you would like to be.
Thanks,
Laura Capps
456-2554
To: Ross Corson
From: Laura Capps
re: Concord Event
Attached is information regarding a Concord Campaign Finance Reform event being planned by
Representative Martin Meehan. It is intended to be a launching of the "Scholars for Campaign
Reform" committee.
The scholars would like to be affiliated with the effort that Senator Kassebaum Baker and Vice
President Mondale are leading.
I know the term affiliation is loose and would have to be defined more specifically. However,
would Vice President Mondale agree to this affiliation in principle?
Please let me know. I can put you in touch with Dan Manatt of Congressman Meehan's office if
you would like to be.
Thanks,
Laura Capps
456-2554
Jan: 508-3402
ROSS 612-340 2644
Fax#
I
03/19/97
15:59
2022260771
Cong. Meehan
4
002/004
APRIL 18 CAMPAIGN REFORM EVENT
CONCORD, MASSACHUSETTS
PROPOSAL OUTLINE
Event:
Concord Town Meeting
Professors for Campaign Reform Committee Rollout
(Subcommittee of Kassebaum/Mondale Committee)
Location:
Concord, Massachusetts
Date:
Patriots Day, April 18, 1997 (Anniversary of Battle of Lexington and
Concord)
Organizers:
Office of Rep. Marty Meehan
Project Independence
Kennedy School of Government/Derek Bok/Archibald Cox (???)
Theme:
"Campaign Reform and the Reform Tradition in American History"
PROGRAM
Town Meeting:
Moderated by Rep. Marty Meehan, Chris Shays
Announcement:
Professors for Campaign Reform Committee Formation
(Subcommittee of Kassebaum/Mondale Committee)
Brief Remarks by Committee Members (Possible Members listed below):
Doris Kearns Goodwin, Historian
David McCullough, Historian
Arthur Schlesinger, Professor of History, Harvard University
Derek Bok, fmr. President, Harvard University
Professor, Kennedy School of Government
Sen. Alan Simpson (R-WY), adjunct Professor, Kennedy School of Government
Rep. Mickey Edwards (R-OK), adjunct Professor, Kennedy School of Government
Address:
President Clinton, Vice President Gore ?
Special Event:
Reenactment of the Battle of Lexington and Concord
Message:
The Concord Town Meeting will bring together citizens to participate in the
great tradition of New England town meetings to discuss the state of American
democracy and the need for campaign reform.
The Scholars for Reform Kickoff will add a historical perspective, and tap the
credibility and good will these professors bring to the subject. They might
also recall episodes from U.S. History - including the Revolutionary War, the
Declaration of Independence, the Constitutional Convention, the Progressive
Era, and the Voting Rights movement and draw lessons for reformers from
those episodes.
(Note: Attendees have not yet been invited or confirmed)
03/19/97
15:59
2022260771
Cong. Meehan
003/004
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Peter Jacoby, Special Assistant to the President
FROM:
Daniel Manatt, Legislative Counsel, Rep. Marty Meehan
RE:
Concord Campaign Reform Event
DATE:
March 19, 1997
Per our discussions, Rep. Meehan and Rep. Shays are
considering a campaign reform event in Concord, MA (which is in
Rep. Meehan's district) on April 18, the anniversary of the
Battle of Lexington and Concord.
After discussing possible themes with you, Common Cause, and
others, we propose to capitalize on the historical symbolism of
the President's July 4 challenge, and the time and place of the
event.
Specifically, we propose that the event serve as a kickoff
for a "Scholars for Campaign Reform" committee. The Committee
could comprise of high profile scholars, such as Arthur
Schlesinger, David McCullough, Derek Bok, and Doris Kearns
Goodwin (who has previously served on Administration campaign
reform efforts).
The Committee might also be established as an affiliate of
the Kassebaum-Baker/Mondale committee.
These Professors command real respect among opinion-makers,
and their turning out to lend their name to the bipartisan
campaign reform effort would be newsworthy. Moreover, these
luminaries might link the current bipartisan campaign reform
effort to other episodes from U.S. history, such as the
Revolution, the Declaration, and the Constitution. Such a
message would play well with the elite media, such as the News
Hour (where Dr. Goodwin is a regular). It would also play well
with USAToday and local media, which would seize on the patriotic
symbolism of the event.
I have been in touch with Bok, Common Cause, and others, all
of whom have been receptive to the idea. In addition, Rep.
Meehan is a personal friend of Professor Goodwin's, and is
hopeful that he could bring her into the effort.
The event could also be supplemented with good visuals
for instance, the reenactment of the Battle of Lexington and
Concord, which is already scheduled for April 18 as part of the
annual Massachusetts Patriots Day ceremonies which commemorate
the battle.
03/19/97
16:00
2022260771
Cong. Meehan
004/004
Our office is continuing to develop plans. (As you can see
from the attached clips, Rep. Meehan held a town hall event in
Concord last year with the participation of Paul Tsongas and Ross
Perot; with help from outside groups, we could build an even
bigger and better event) . White House participation, needless to
say, could make the event all the more successful.
We look forward to speaking with you about this opportunity.
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
OFFICE OF
SPEECHWRITING
Phone number (202) 456-2777
Fax number (202) 456-5709
TO:
Ross CORSON
FROM:
MICHAEL WALDMAN
RECEIVER FAX AND PHONE NUMBER: (612) 340 - 6306
NUMBER OF PAGES (INCLUDING COVER SHEET):
5
COMMENTS:
***WARNING***
UNAUTHORIZED USE OF THESE MATERIALS IS SUBJECT TO FEDERAL
PROSECUTION
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
OFFICE OF
SPEECHWRITING
Phone number (202) 456-2777
Fax number (202) 456-5709
TO:
JAN VOLEVICH
FROM:
MICHAEL WALDMAN
RECEIVER FAX AND PHONE NUMBER: (202)508-3402
NUMBER OF PAGES (INCLUDING COVER SHEET):
5
COMMENTS:
***WARNING***
UNAUTHORIZED USE OF THESE MATERIALS IS SUBJECT TO FEDERAL
PROSECUTION