Q: During the campaign, Al Gore said it should be the job of the U.S. government to build an electronic information highway. And then he gave a speech that said, 'Never mind. I think the private sector will do it.' Why did he change his mind?
Lewis: I think probably the main reason is that he found out, as the Administration found out when they got into office, and actually right before they got into office, a week or two before the inauguration, I think they discovered financial realities, fiscal realities, that they couldn't cut taxes and balance the budget and do a $100 billion-plus information highway and do all these things... And I think that's actually the main story.
However, these interests were desperately anxious that he not do anything in a major public way. The last thing that the cable companies and the telephone companies and the computer companies and all these information-age companies wanted was regulation or interference or involvement by government. They didn't want it, and they made it very clear they didn't want it.
The public and the media have generally ignored the fact that in a grandiose way, this Administration promised and pledged and believed that they would do a massive public information highway and then turn it over to the private sector, and then it completely flip flopped. That's generally unknown.
But the other thing that's very interesting is the day of the speech, when the Vice President announced that this would be a private highway, built and maintained by private companies with virtually no regulation by the federal government, in that two day period around that speech, $132,000 of soft money came in to the Democratic Party by various large companies that had been urging the Administration for months to do just that.
Q: Two days before and after the speech?
Lewis: Yeah. The same day and the day after. But it's the two day period in December of '93.
Q: Now that could just be applause: "Thank heaven you've seen the light." A legitimate kind of applause. Or it could be a payoff. What are you suggesting?
Lewis: I think it was a reward of sorts by the companies. I'm not saying necessarily that Clinton/Gore, I think they didn't have much choice. I think they over-promised, frankly. But I do think it was a reward. It was a way of saying, 'You did the right thing. We're very pleased.'
The reason I think this is, we have looked at soft money payments over two or three years. And usually when you see a big chunk of money, it didn't come in one check. We found MCI made 23 checks over a two-year period. And the average check was a few thousand dollars. But on this day, it was $50,000. And so, there's more to it than just having it be a coincidence. . . . I think it's a financial version of a big wet kiss.
Q: Now, what's so terrible about that?
Lewis: Well, if you happen to agree with the decision, you could feel that way. The problem is, it gives the impression that public policy is bought and sold.
Q: But you're not saying that it was. Al Gore had no money. He couldn't really put his plan through.
Lewis: I actually believe that this is a complicated issue. I think that they had no money, and the industry was delighted when they backed down and did really all they could do.
Q: But we shouldn't believe that this sum of money arriving on those two or three days is a payoff. We can simply believe that it's applause.
Lewis: It's applause. There are some who have a less benign explanation that it is a payoff. It depends on your political perspective. I don't think it's a coincidence, let's put it that way. People don't give money for no reason, and they don't give thousands of dollars or over $100,000 from several companies on one particular day. It just doesn't happen like that very often.
Q: How accurate is the equation 'money equals victory at the polls.' And if it is accurate, why isn't Ross Perot the President?
Lewis: Money is a complicated thing. You cannot look at politics and money and just look at it in a narrow way.
You have to have organization. You have to be articulate. You have to have access to the media and be impressive in the media. And all those do require money, and they're all useful. Ross Perot spent $65 million, and guess what? He got more votes than any non-two party person in 80 years, since Teddy Roosevelt. Some would say money was quite effective. Some would say that he wouldn't have got two votes if he hadn't spent a lot of that money. He got access to the media. He achieved an instant organization in 50 states with United We Stand, through his millions of dollars. He created an instant campaign.
Steve Forbes has become a phenomenon of sorts in New Hampshire through a media campaign. He's already spent a few million dollars doing almost nothing except media. Why? Because that's all he can do. He has no organization. But he has the money. And so, therefore, we are sitting here talking about Steve Forbes.
Guess how many people ran for President in 1992? Two hundred and fifty people. Do we know about all those people?
Q: No.
Lewis: No. And I wonder why. Money could be related. So it's a combination of things. You have to be good on TV, or you have to have a good message that's carefully crafted. You could be bad on TV but have a really good ad. But my point is, if you're not a millionaire, or you don't have a lot of money, you don't even get to play in that game.
Q: But here's my asterisk. You can be a millionaire, like John Connolly. You can spend a katillion dollars. And you can go no place.
Lewis: That's true. There are cases of very, very exceptionally funded millionaires who could not get out of the box.
Q: So money is not destiny here.
Lewis: Money is not destiny. But you can't begin to discuss destiny for any of these folks unless they have money. It is an essential ingredient. Tell me one person who's gotten elected to the White House in the last 20 years who didn't raise millions and millions of dollars. There's not a one.
Q: Jimmy Carter.
Lewis: No. Jimmy Carter raised more than any of the Democratic Challengers in 1976.
