    [Public Papers of the Presidents of the United States: William J. Clinton (1997, Book I)]
    [March 11, 1997]
    [Pages 277-281]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office www.gpo.gov]

    Remarks to the Conference on Free TV and Political Reform and an
    Exchange With Reporters
    March 11, 1997

        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 around. 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 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

    [[Page 278]]

    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 can 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 3 times as much in this last
    election cycle as 4 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 claimed to be.
    Spending in congressional campaigns has risen sixfold in the last two
    decades. That's over 3 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
    on 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. 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 2 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 occurring
    which imperil the integrity of the electoral process and the financing
    of campaigns would also be badly amiss.

    [[Page 279]]

        The second thing I'd like to say is, we should be hopeful because we
    have seen over the last 4 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 decisionmakers. We required Congress to live under
    the same laws that they impose upon the private sector.
        Every single one of these things has happened in the last 4 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. 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 multimillionaire 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

    [[Page 280]]

    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 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 controversy 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.
        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
    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 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.

    [[Page 281]]

        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 use, 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 in 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.

    1996 Elections

        Q. Mr. President.
        The President. Hello, Sarah [Sarah McClendon, McClendon News
    Service].
        Q. I want to know--you said that you would not have been reelected
    had you not raised that money----
        The President. I think--no, I think I 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 5 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 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.

    Note: The President spoke at 11:12 a.m. at the National Press Club. In
    his remarks, he referred to Walter Cronkite, chair, and Paul Taylor,
    executive director, Free TV for Straight Talk Coalition; Ann McBride,
    president, Common Cause; Becky Cain, president, National League of Women
    Voters; and Barry Diller, former chairman, Fox Broadcasting. The
    Executive order of March 11 establishing the Advisory Committee on the
    Public Interest Obligations of Digital Television Broadcasters is listed
    in Appendix D at the end of this volume.