Q: I'm curious about remedies to fix this problem. Let me suggest some: Let's make soft money illegal, so you can't give to the national party.
Lewis: Sounds reasonable.
Q: Let's take this whole thing back to the states and pass laws in each and every state, since Washington can't fix it, and we'll make a $100 contribution limit or something for every state.
Lewis: As long as Washington does nothing, there's nothing unreasonable about that, either.
Q: Let's do very strict campaign finance. Let's regulate the whole thing. Campaigns will be regulated so that they can only be on TV for two and a half weeks. All the ads are free. You only have a certain amount of money to spend and the taxpayers will give it to you. No private money at all.
Lewis: That's an intriguing thought, and it should be explored.
Q: Would it work?
Lewis: It does in Britain. It does in several countries.
Q: In our culture?
Lewis: We've never tried it.
Q: So you'd be interested?
Lewis: Well, what's the alternative?
Q: Well, here's the alternative. Take all the lids off. No rules. Spend whatever you spend.
Lewis: I think that's a terrible idea.
Q: Well, it may be more effective, it may be more honest than what we've got now.
Lewis: No, it wouldn't be more honest. We have a situation here where we have this idea, this illusion, this conceit, that we have a government of the people, by the people, for the people, when in fact, it's a giant auction, and power is sold every day in Washington, D.C.
If you did it this way, as you just said, we have a large house of prostitution. It's called the District of Columbia. It's where our national seat of government is. Give as much as you want. Just understand, we're being honest about it. That's what you're getting. It's prostitution, legalized prostitution every day in the nation's capitol. Then just be honest about it and say that's what it is.
If the American people tolerate that, then maybe Jimmy Carter was right, and you get the government you deserve. I don't think the American people would tolerate that. In fact, polls show that they don't tolerate that. Most Americans were repulsed by what happened at Watergate. They don't like the idea of suitcases of cash in dark smoky bars, passed in offshore banks. They don't like the idea of the average contribution being $40,000.
Q: There will be no smoky bars here. It wouldn't be against the law. It would be a broad daylight exchange, perhaps on national television.
Lewis: It's not just the secrecy. People didn't like it being bought. They didn't like the White House keys having a price tag on them. I don't think that's something that people like. That's not free speech. That means some people speak a little more freely than others.
Q: So give me your favorite formula that you think might work.
Lewis: I think the best formula right now, until there's a national consensus, and there's actually leadership on this issue by the people that theoretically are supposed to lead our society, happen to be in government, until there's a consensus, we need to know more about the problem.
We need disclosure. We don't have disclosure. I want to know how soft money was spent. I want to know about foundations that are masquerading as foundations, and if they're campaign committees. Let's find out more about how bad this problem is, and then eventually, we'll come to a solution. Guess what? The American people are fed up, and they keep talking about how they want reform, and that's why you have the Gingriches and the Clintons of the world giving lip service to that. Some day, the American people will not tolerate lip service. And if someone did not vote for reform in the last Congress, they're on their ear. That's probably what is required right now.
The country may not be ready for it. '96 may be too soon. But the country is moving increasingly towards regulating this very heavily, because they're fed up. And some day it might happen. And I don't know if it's good or bad. I'm just telling you where it's headed.
Q: Jack Kemp and Dan Quayle and Bill Bradley have all said, 'This is just too hard for me. It isn't worth it for me to go through this fund raising thing to become President.'
Now, there's two ways you can think about this: 'So you're a bunch of wimps. You don't deserve to be President.' Or: 'There's something wrong here.' I'm wondering why you think there's something wrong.
Lewis: Was Thomas Jefferson a champion fund raiser? Were the Founding Fathers and the statesmen in our country, when we actually still thought we had statesmen who had not been totally sullied one way or another, were they champion fund-raisers who outspent everyone else?
I think that good people are not entering politics, and they're doing it because politics these days is non-substantive BS. It involves raising money, taking the tin cup, doing a lot of TV ads that try to capture and manipulate minds instantly with no substance. And there's a lot of crap these days that passes for politics. Good people, substantive people -- I may agree or disagree with their politics -- decide that it's not worth it. And so you're getting people who might be qualified to be President of the United States, but they don't want to go near it.
And so you're going to end up with a bunch of really good Rolodex-laden fund raisers, Sammy Glick types with a smile, a nice handshake. They make a good speech. They've got some good handlers. And that's who you're electing to be President of the United States in going into the next century. That's where America is in the 90's.
