[Bill Moyer's Interview with Chuck Lewis]
pbs.org
"not the wars waged on the airwaves, not the unprecedented fundraising, not
even the selling of public policy on the putting green will surprise my guest, Chuck Lewis.
He's been following the money trail longer than almost any bloodhound I know. Fifteen
years ago he left his job at 60 MINUTES to set up the Center for Public Integrity as a
non-profit, non-partisan watchdog in Washington. The Schumann Foundation that I head
has been a supporter of the center.
Here's the latest from Chuck Lewis and his team. The BUYING OF THE PRESIDENT, 2004,
published just yesterday. It's the latest in a long line of Center investigations into the
mercenary culture of Washington.
This one took 50 researchers, writers and editors over a year investigating the candidates
and the political parties, contacting or interviewing 600 people and analyzing nearly two
million financial records at over 100 federal agencies. Welcome to NOW.
LEWIS: Thank you for having me.
MOYERS: You say in here that in the buildup to the 2000 election, I believe George Bush
raised about $240,000 a day and Al Gore raised about $85,000 a day?
LEWIS: That's right. And now Bush is at $500,000-plus a day, more like $575 a day. So he
has more than doubled those astonishing numbers from '99.
MOYERS: You report that when General Wesley Clark retired from the military, he earned
over $800,000 lobbying former pals and peers for airline and homeland security contracts
and that he didn't tell us that when he appeared on CNN as a commentator on the war on
terrorism. Why would a man do that, thinking he's going to run for President? Because
that's bound to be harmful when it is ultimately disclosed?
LEWIS: Well, that's sort of what I thought. It's the first time I know of a major Presidential
candidate running who's also currently a lobbyist. When he announced, September 17th,
he was still registered in Washington as a lobbyist.
MOYERS: Yet the new Governor of Mississippi, Haley Barber, was one of the most
successful lobbyists in the history of Washington.
LEWIS: Well, we're getting a new phenomenon now, the new shamelessness where people
don't care any more. It used to be that a lobbyist ran, people would laugh him out of the
room, and it would be unacceptable. Now you have a guy who just got elected Governor of
Mississippi and we have a Presidential candidate who not only was a lobbyist, but he was a
commentator objectively commentating on the war while he was trying to get homeland
security and defense contracts and meeting with the Vice President among others.
And I'm not sure CNN knew this, by the way. We talked to CNN. We're trying to get
information about what did they know and when did they know it. But ... everyone should
have disclosed that. No question.
MOYERS: You've got this in the book, but were you really surprised that with the makers of
Budweiser beer as his largest contributor, Richard Gephardt tried at least five times to cut
the alcohol tax?
LEWIS: I wasn't surprised. And you know, his campaign says, "Well, what do you expect us
to do? They're one of the biggest employers in Saint Louis and in his district." And my view
is, yes, you are supposed to represent your constituents, and including large employers in
your district. That's your job as a member of Congress.
I don't dispute that for a moment. I do happen to think that if you're running for
President, the American people have a right to know who your best friend in the world is
that gave you more than half a million dollars. I think that's relevant information. And now
the public will know that if there's any health care initiative, we won't be paying for it with
an alcohol tax, which is exactly what he fought against and succeeded in eliminating in the
Clinton years.
MOYERS: You point out in here that John Edwards, running for the President from North
Carolina, went to 175 fundraisers in the first three months of his campaign. Two a day?
LEWIS: He absolutely did. And the problem is they're all doing that. And I've talked to
Presidential candidates who opted out of the system like Jack Kemp years ago in the first
BUYING OF THE PRESIDENT who said, "Look, I'm 60 years old. I have grandchildren. I like
to ski. I'm not gonna go to 200, 250 fundraisers in a year and be away from my family,
travel 80 percent of the time and spend time with people I don't want to spend time with."
"If that's what it takes to run for President, I'm not doing it." Now, ironically in his case, he
was named to the Dole ticket later. He didn't see that one coming, I don't think.
MOYERS: We said in this setup that the President has about $130 million already for his
war chest and no primary opponent. What kind of advantage does that give the incumbent
to have that much money?
LEWIS: Oh, it's just off the charts. I mean, you know, every incumbent President has an
advantage because they have the White House, the bully pulpit. They can control the
agenda everyday, the photo ops, the news cycles. I mean, that's already a great agenda…
I mean, a great advantage that no one has. Forget the money.
And then when you have 130 million, more than three times Howard Dean's 40 million
which was the highest raised by any Democrat in 2003, that means you have three times
more ads, three times more accountants and lawyers. Not… we don't need them. But issue
ads.
You're gonna have more consultants. You're gonna have more polling. You're gonna have
more word smithing about this precise methods. Your campaign will be slicker and more
professional. It'll also be in more states. It'll have more grass roots. I mean, if there are
any grass roots.
It's just, you know, we all know in our society that you can do more and you can do it
better usually if you have a lot of money. It's just that's true in campaigning as well.
MOYERS: How do you sum up the answer to your subtitle? "Who's really bankrolling Bush
and his Democratic challengers?" I mean, a lot of… you go through and you find a lot of
different donors and contributors. What's the short answer to that?
LEWIS: The most powerful interests in America that want to get something from
government. That's who's bankrolling. In the case of Bush, his top ten career patrons, six
of them are from financial institutions that…
MOYERS: Wall Street firms?
LEWIS: Wall Street firms that are benefiting everything from capital gains… policies to
off-shore tax havens not being interfered with to, you know, you name it. Privatizing Social
Security where they see a bonanza there if that comes to pass. And so this is a very
exciting moment for those firms.
And so in 2000, in the career patrons for Bush, there were no financial firms in the top ten.
Today there are six in the top ten. There's been a flocking of money from Wall Street to
Bush.
MOYERS: I shouldn't have been surprised by this, but I was when I read in here that Enron,
the scandalous corporation now in bankruptcy, remains the top career contributor to George
W. Bush's… that's true?
LEWIS: It is true. They're actually the highest giving contributor in the entire book. And
they have been with Bush throughout his career. In fact, the current CEO was still giving
money in 2003 to Bush. But most of that money came from Texas when he was Governor,
and they have no limits.
But Enron has gotten favors from Bush the father, from Clinton and from the current Bush.
And we've actually on our Web site earlier in the past year have actually documented all
the favors Enron has gotten. We also have found letters between Ken Lay and George
Bush quite a number of them, dozens and dozens and dozens of personal.
MOYERS: This George Bush?
LEWIS: Yeah. "Dear Ken" and I don't know whether he called him, "Dear Governor" or
"Dear George." But I mean, very close friendly…
MOYERS: He used to call him Kenny-boy.
LEWIS: He called him Kenny-boy until the Enron scandal broke and then it was suddenly
Mr. Lay. And it was pretty amusing. But anyway, this is a very close relationship and no
question about it. And yes, they're still number one. MBNA and Merrill Lynch are closing
fast, though.
MOYERS: Financial houses, financial services, big supporters of the President. Corporations
that want something from government the next four years. Who's bankrolling the
Democrats if you could sum it up in kind of a bumper sticker like that?
LEWIS: Well, you, I mean, the principal top ten funders - six out of ten, no surprise - are
labor unions. Labor unions give very aggressively. The National Executive Council, AFL-CIO
Unions give and AFSCME, the American Federation of State, County and Municipal
Employees is the top patron. They've actually given more money than any other donor in
America, not just to the Democratic Party.
They've given 19 million over the last decade or so. And they also gave 36 million to these
mysterious 527 political organizations. So they are very, very active. But the corporate
presence in the Democratic Party is substantial just because all top ten are not
corporations one should not get the view that corporations and do not substantially
bankroll the party 'cause they do.
MOYERS: You say in the book that despite the recent McCain-Feingold campaign finance
reform there are tens of millions of dollars sloshing through the states in mysterious
organizations that have been set up. Tell me about those.
LEWIS: Well, we have a section in about the South Carolina primary and what happened in
2000 in the primary to John McCain. And he essentially got mugged. He was outspent five
to one by Bush. But he also was mugged by all these outside groups who spent millions of
dollars that were not disclosed anywhere. And a lot of the… you know, there are these new
groups called 527s. But there's also 501-C3 and other types of organization… Sorry.
MOYERS: The mind boggles.
LEWIS: I know.
MOYERS: No, I mean, they're just… they're all a way of camouflaging support for someone,
right?
LEWIS: Right. That's right. If I am a millionaire or a powerful corporate interest and I want
to throw some money into the system, seven figure checks, I can do it today, regardless of
the…
MOYERS: As George Soros is doing with the Democrats?
LEWIS: That… well, that's right. You can do that. Soros does it. Everyone. Jane Fonda gave
$11 million in the 2000 election. So folks are writing large checks. But we know that. That
is actually disclosed. What is more insidious to me is when they're writing those checks and
we can't see it.
That drives me crazy. And so there is… if I want to move money through the system today
and I'm a powerful donor, I do know how to do it under the radar. There are ways to do
that. And most journalists don't know how to track it. And, in fact, it's almost untrackable.
That's the point.
MOYERS: Is Dean any cleaner because he raised so much money from small donors on
the internet?
LEWIS: You know, I'm always reluctant to use words like "cleaner" just because I don't
want to sound like I endorse anybody. But the numbers are… certainly he has smaller
donor numbers. And even as governor for 11 years, Vermont has limits on their
contributions of $400. So his numbers are… his third highest patron are his campaign staff
members at $15,000. That tells you… compare that with 600,000 from Enron.
The problem is when you get up around 40 million and you go past 40 million, Howard
Dean has opted out of the matching fund system. He is gonna have to keep raising at that
pace.
And what's happening is if he does get the nomination and every nominee since 1975 who
raises the most money the year before the election gets the nomination without exception,
history shows in recent years. The power elite, the financial elites will begin to coalesce
around the Democratic person on the, in their minds, off chance that a Democrat beats the
incumbent in 2004. And so my point is, the money, the texture of Howard Dean's money is
gonna and probably already has begun to substantially change.
MOYERS: You say in here that every election cycle becomes more exclusionary, more
expensive and more secretive. How can you claim democracy is legitimate when essentially
the system is rigged, as you say in the book, by powerful economic interests?
LEWIS: I think we have a problem here. And it is rigged. There's a private referendum the
year before the election where folks who write checks decide who you will vote for. I mean,
most of the choices are already being made prior to Iowa and New Hampshire and all
these primaries and caucuses.
Candidates who can only raise two or three million are being laughed at as being ridiculous
or, you know, or not a significant force. They have all these euphemisms. But the fact that
90 percent of the money moves to candidates before the election is held and usually they
drop out. Remember five Republicans dropped out of the race in '99 because Bush raised
$70 million, close to $70 million. And he came out of the box in the first quarter raising
$37 million. The Republicans in the race… two-time former Cabinet Secretary Elizabeth
Dole, former Vice President Dan Quayle and other big-name candidates who all were
national figures on the national stage, dropped out by September, three or four months
before Iowa and New Hampshire.
Because all the air was sucked out of the room. The media endorsed, essentially, George
Bush as the candidate and the inevitable one. And so there's something strange going on
when folks who write checks define who gets to run for President. You'd have to be a
millionaire or be willing to raise unimaginable sums of money.
MOYERS: In 2002, out of 435 races for the House of Representatives, only four
incumbents got beat?
LEWIS: Right. Only four incumbents lost their seats. The last three election cycles, the
House of Representatives has had an incumbent retention rate of more than 98 percent.
That sounds like North Korea or China but we're talking about the United States of
America.
MOYERS: You know, this book is a bummer.
LEWIS: I know. I'm sorry.
MOYERS: I have to tell… it is.
LEWIS: It is.
MOYERS: And I can… people out there listening to us, you know what they say? And I…
they've said it to me face to face. "You know, why bother? The system is rigged."
LEWIS: Right.
MOYERS: Are we becoming a nation of cynical bystanders in which increasingly small
economic groups dominate our government?
LEWIS: Well, I mean, the short answer is, yes, we are. But citizens have got to take back
their government. It's supposed to be a government of, by and for the people. It's clearly
some people with large checks. We have a problem in our democracy where it's been
hijacked, essentially by powerful interests. And the public has got to decide is that
acceptable or is it outrageous.
MOYERS: So why do you keep doing this?
LEWIS: Well, it's because I'm crazy I think. A masochist.
I think the public has a right to better. The powers that be are unaccountable today. And
the public has a right to know, a) who they are, and b) to decide whether or not they want
to change that. And that's up to them.
We're not changing anything. We're just telling 'em what's going on.
MOYERS: The book is THE BUYING OF THE PRESIDENT, 2004 by Charles Lewis and the
Center for Public Integrity. Thank you for joining us again on NOW.
LEWIS: Thank you. |
