[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 25 (Wednesday, February 28, 1996)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages E221-E222]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                    BRODER REBUTS EXCESSIVE CYNICISM

                                 ______


                           HON. BARNEY FRANK

                            of massachusetts

                    in the house of representatives

                       Tuesday, February 27, 1996

  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I have long felt that the 
most damaging form of naivete is excessive cynicism. No where is that 
better illustrated than in the current grossly distorted discussion of 
the influence of campaign contributions on public policy. The view that 
campaign contributions dominate most policy outcomes is a dangerously 
mistaken one. It is a complete lack of sophistication about the 
political process masquerading as the ultimate tough mindedness. And it 
is not only gravely wrong to argue that campaign contributions are the 
major factor in most policy outcomes, it is self-defeating. To the 
extent that citizens do believe that elected officials care little 
about votes and public opinion, not to mention the merits of the 
issues, and instead are driven largely by campaign contributions in 
making decisions, those citizens will be discouraged from voicing the 
opinions which are in fact the single greatest influence in our public 
policy deliberations.
  In his column in the Washington Post for Wednesday, January 31, David 
Broder very effectively makes this point with a trenchant and cogent 
analysis of the recent PBS ``Frontline'' program on campaign financing.
  That program, entitled ``So You Want To Buy A President'' seems to 
have perpetuated the mythic view that campaign finance is all important 
in deciding public policy debates. David Broder who knows better, 
demonstrates the fallacy of this reasoning in his column. Because it is 
important that citizens not be encouraged to fall into the trap of 
believing that their efforts will have no influence in the face of 
campaign contributions, I ask that David Broder's very important 
article be printed here.

               [From the Washington Post, Jan. 31, 1996]

                ``Frontline's'' Exercise in Exaggeration

                          (By David S. Broder)

       As if the cynicism about politics were not deep enough 
     already, PBS's ``Frontline'' last 

[[Page E222]]
     night presented a documentary called ``So You Want To Buy A 
     President?''whose thesis seems to be that campaigns are a 
     charade, policy debates are a deceit and only money talks.
       The narrow point, made by Sen. Arlen Specter (R-Pa.), an 
     early dropout from the 1996 presidential race, about 
     millionaire publisher Malcolm S. (Steve) Forbes Jr., is that 
     ``somebody is trying to buy the White House, and apparently 
     it is for sale.''
       The broader indictment, made by correspondent/narrator 
     Robert Krulwich, is that Washington is gripped by a ``barter 
     culture'' in which politicians are for sale and public policy 
     is purchased by campaign contributions.
       The program rested heavily on a newly published paperback, 
     ``The Buying of the President.'' Author Charles Lewis, the 
     head of the modestly titled Center for Public Integrity, was 
     a principal witness, and Kevin Phillips, the conservative 
     populist author who wrote the book's introduction, was also a 
     major figure in the documentary.
       It dramatized the view asserted by Lewis in the conclusion 
     of his book: ``Simply stated, the wealthiest interests 
     bankroll and, in effect, help to preselect the specific major 
     candidates months and months before a single vote is cast 
     anywhere. . . .
       We the people have become a mere afterthought of those we 
     put in office, a prop in our own play.''
       Viewers saw a number of corporate executives--no labor 
     leaders, no religious leaders, no activists of any kind, for 
     some reason--who have raised and contributed money for 
     presidents and presidential candidates and thereafter been 
     given access at dinners, private meetings or overseas trade 
     missions.
       It is implied--but never shown--that policies changed 
     because of these connections. As Krulwich said in the 
     transcript of a media interview distributed, along with an 
     advance tape, with the publicity kit for the broadcast, ``We 
     don't really know whether these are bad guys or good guys. . 
     . . I'm not really sure we've been able to prove, in too many 
     cases, that a dollar spent bought a particular favor. All 
     we've been able to show is that over and over again, people 
     who do give a lot of money to politicians get a chance to 
     talk to those politicians face to face, at parties, on 
     planes, on missions, in private lunches, and you and I 
     don't.''
       If that is the substance of the charge, the innuendo is 
     much heavier. At one point, Krulwich asked Lewis, in his most 
     disingenuous manner, ``Do you come out convinced that 
     elections are in huge part favors for sale, or in tiny 
     part?''
       And Lewis replied that while ``there are a lot of wealthy 
     people that do want to express broad philosophical issues,'' 
     the ``vested interests that have very narrow agendas that 
     they want pursued see these candidates as their handmaidens 
     or their puppets. The presidential campaign is not a horse 
     race or a beauty contest. It's a giant auction.''
       That is an oversimplified distortion that can do nothing 
     but further alienate a cynical electorate. Of course, money 
     is an important ingredient in our elections and its use 
     deserves scrutiny. But ideas are important too, and grass-
     roots activism even more so. The Democratic Leadership 
     Council's Al From and the Heritage Foundation's Robert Rector 
     have had more influence in the last decade than any fund-
     raisers or contributors, because candidates have turned to 
     them for policy advice.
       John Rother of the American Association of Retired Persons 
     and Ralph Reed of the Christian Coalition work for 
     organizations that are nominally nonpartisan and make no 
     campaign contributions at all. But their membership votes--so 
     they have power.
       The American political system is much more complex--and 
     more open to influence by any who choose to engage in it--
     than the proponents of the ``auction'' theory of democracy 
     understand, or choose to admit.
       By exaggerating the influence of money, they send a clear 
     message to citizens that the game is rigged, so there's no 
     point in playing. That is deceitful, and it's dangerously 
     wrong to feel that cynicism.
       Especially when they have nothing to suggest when it comes 
     to changing the rules for the money game.
       At one point, Phillips said that the post-Watergate reforms 
     succeeded only in having ``forced them [the contributors and 
     politicians] to be more devious.'' That is untrue. Those 
     reforms, which mandated the disclosure of all the financial 
     connections on which the program was based, also created 
     publicity which, even Krulwich and Co. admitted, foiled the 
     ``plots'' of some contributors.
       And Krulwich, for his part, suggested very helpfully that 
     ``every high-profile politician agrees that some things have 
     got to change. Change the limits. Change the rules. Change 
     the primaries. Change the ads. Change enforcement. You gotta 
     change something.''
       How about changing the kind of journalism that tells people 
     that politicians are bought-and-paid-for puppets and you're a 
     sucker if you think there's a damn thing you can do to make 
     your voice heard?

                          ____________________