Crossfire

Is Al Gore Sincere About Campaign Finance Reform?

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

AL GORE, VICE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: So the first choice facing us, as always, is whether we will try or not. And in simple terms here is the contrast: I will try. Governor Bush will not.

(APPLAUSE)

That was pretty simple.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BILL PRESS, CO-HOST: Tonight, Al Gore says he's the man with the plan to reform campaign fund raising. But is he the right man to be making an issue of it?

ANNOUNCER: Live from Washington, CROSSFIRE. On the left, Bill Press; on the right, Mary Matalin. In the crossfire, Pennsylvania Congressman Paul Kanjorski, an Al Gore supporter, and in Pensacola Florida, Congressman Joe Scarborough, a supporter of Governor George W. Bush.

PRESS: Good evening. Welcome to CROSSFIRE. Campaign finance reform is back on the front burner, and guess who put it there: Al Gore. Yes, the same Al Gore who attended a fund-raiser at the Buddhist temple without, he says, knowing what was going on, and the same Al Gore who made those fund-raising calls from the White House without, he says, any controlling legal authority against them.

Even Gore admitted today he's not exactly the poster boy of reform.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

GORE: I've got the scars to prove it. And I know I may be an imperfect messenger for this cause, but the real wounds will be to our democracy itself unless and until we address this problem.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

PRESS: Gore's proposal goes even beyond John McCain, calling for a ban on all soft money, creation of a $7 billion endowment to fund future Senate and House campaigns, and free TV and radio time for candidates to plug their message.

Campaign reform groups praised the Gore plan today, but no surprise it was immediately denounced by George W. Bush as -- quote -- "a taxpayer-financed government takeover of campaigns" -- end quote. And so the battle is on.

Has Al Gore replaced John McCain as the apostle of reform? Or is Gore's past just too messy for him to be taken seriously on this issue? -- Mary.

MARY MATALIN, CO-HOST: Congressman, thanks for joining us here. And before we get to the plan -- lots to dissect there -- let's get -- let's talk a little bit about the man. I don't know if I could bear to listen to anymore from his speech today, but let's listen to what the vice president had to say today about his integrity.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

GORE: I care very deeply about the integrity of our politics, and of course, about my own integrity as well. My commitment to changing America's campaign finance laws is both personal and profound.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MATALIN: Let's talk about the first one, profound profession here of his integrity. In a recently released, or leaked, or whatever, LaBella document -- LaBella being the hand picked head of the campaign task force by Janet Reno -- it was suggested that the vice president may have provided false testimony to the FBI by saying 23 times he did not recall meetings about hard -- about making hard calls. When faced with documents showing that he was at the meetings and he was paying attention, then he said, well, maybe I was out of the room because I drank too much iced tea.

How -- what kind of integrity does that show when the FBI is saying about this man that he may have provided false testimony to them as recently as a couple of years ago?

REP. PAUL KANJORSKI (D-PA), GORE SUPPORTER: First and foremost, Mary, you've been in campaigns and you know how those meetings take place, so we don't have to go into that background. But I've known Al Gore for 16 years. I don't know George Bush personally but I know his father. I think we have two outstanding candidates with high integrity for the presidency. It would be a shame if we deny their right to discuss important issues that will affect not their campaign but future campaigns and how the Congress will be made up and how we'll finance campaigns in the future. I think that's a very important issue, and we ought to encourage both candidates to spoke from their heart and from their mind as to how we can solve this problem.

MATALIN: But congressman, he himself says he's an imperfect messenger, that he's an unlikely vessel. And John McCain, whose voters he's hoping to attract by this ploy, says there cannot be any credibility of his campaign finance reform, that being the vice president's, until there is a full investigation of the campaign finance mishaps which he prominently figured in 1996.

KANJORSKI: I think if you were to characterize him as an imperfect person to make that statement then you'd have to say the entire Congress is imperfect, because we participate in these events. We know that there were former Republican candidates for the president and for office that have used their telephones in their office buildings and all these things.

I think to harp on the past is to miss the thrust that Mr. Gore made today. He's talking about the future policy of the United States and what he'll do as president to help Congress come to terms with what is probably a scandal in the making for not individuals but for the political system and for democracy itself in the United States.

MATALIN: So one more attempt at this. We are supposed to, based solely, as he says, on his word expect that he will overhaul the campaign finance system when he has not even complied with the current finance laws?

KANJORSKI: Well, that's a conclusion you reach. I don't think there's anyone who says he hasn't complied or proven that. I think that he certainly has been criticized. Some of the activities of '96 were worth criticism. I think you were involved in a campaign with Mr. Dole. And just in the district to the north of mine in Pennsylvania, $7 million fine was allocated against the treasurer of Mr. Dole's campaign.

That does not in any way impeach Mr. Dole. So I don't know why you...

MATALIN: I was just a campaign operative. Bob Dole nor George Bush nor anybody else that we've ever known, including you or any of your colleagues, walked into a Buddhist temple and laundered $65,000 from nuns and monks who had taken a vow of poverty.

KANJORSKI: Well, I don't know that we know that Mr. Gore did that. And his statements have been taken at this point that there isn't any proof.

I think what we're concentrating on -- if we want to run the next presidential election on who did what when where under what circumstances, we can. But I think what Mr. Gore has done is elevated this issue to a presidential issue that should be discussed by thee American people and decided on: who is going to offer the best leadership or who has the best plan.

PRESS: Congressman Scarborough, welcome back to CROSSFIRE.

REP. JOE SCARBOROUGH (R-FL), BUSH SUPPORTER: Good to be with you.

PRESS: I want to ask you too if we can -- I know it's tough, but look at the message and not the messenger, at least for now. Well, I know we'll get to the messenger before the end of the show, Joe Scarborough. But let's talk first about the message, because there's something that came up today you and I haven't talked about before. And that is one of Gore's proposals is that instead of the 30- and 60- second commercials, that the networks give free air time to candidates to put forth their message.

Joe, wouldn't you have to admit that that is a good idea and gets people away from that burden of having to raise so much money to pay for TV spots?

SCARBOROUGH: Well, I think anytime you give access to credible candidates, that's great. There's some problems, though, and I think we do need to, first of all, talk about the messenger, because, you know, the message he delivered today was -- did not seem to be straightforward. He talked about these scars, and the fact is the scars are still open. In fact, we're having to have an investigation, Republicans and Democrats alike on the Government Reform and Oversight Committee, because of what happened with the e-mails. You also have a lot of other things that the vice president has not really addressed.

If he wants to close the scars that he says he's so concerned about, then he needs to tell us the truth about the Buddhist temple. He needs to come clean about misleading the FBI. He needs to come clean about why they hid all the information about the e-mails. He needs to come clean about what happened with his so-called "iced tea" defense. He needs to come clean about a thousand different things.

Now, 1996 was singularly, according to The New York Times, the '96 Clinton-Gore campaign created the biggest fund-raising scandal in American history since Watergate. I think we need to address that.

Now, can we an address these other issues also? Certainly. And I think we can talk about TV access. I think we can talk about the $7 billion slush fund that he wants to create for political candidates and ask whether we want to spend $7 billion as a slush fund for any political candidates...

PRESS: OK. Let's...

SCARBOROUGH: ... or whether we -- hold on. Or whether we want to spend that money on education and whether we want to spend it on tax cuts...

PRESS: Congressman?

SCARBOROUGH: ... whether we want to spend it on making Social Security stronger.

PRESS: Congressman, that's another issue. I want to get to that one with you, but I'm trying to stay -- and I knew you had to get your attacks at the messenger off your chest, Joe. And you know, the Republicans...

SCARBOROUGH: You're -- you're a focused man.

PRESS: And Republicans always want to attack the messenger. They always want to attack the messenger. They never want to admit how bad they are on the message. So I just want to try get a straight answer from you that these are... SCARBOROUGH: And that's what I'm -- excuse me.

PRESS: May I ask my question? These are public airwaves. They are regulated already. For example, they can't do tobacco ads, for example. So would you vote as a member of Congress to require the networks to give free time to candidates for the House and Senate and do away with TV commercials? Will you accept that one part of Al Gore's plan?

SCARBOROUGH: Well, I don't know if Al Gore, first of all, needs to decide whether he wants to segregate that from the $7 billion slush fund that takes...

PRESS: It's a totally -- it's a different issue.

SCARBOROUGH: ... money from education.

PRESS: It's a different issue.

SCARBOROUGH: Well, no, it's all part of his one package, and the thing is, you know, again, I don't know whether if we pass that legislation whether the Supreme Court would say that it's a bar on free speech or not. I mean, obviously, all things are open. I mean, you're looking at a candidate here that when I ran in '94 I didn't have PAC money or anything else...

PRESS: Right.

SCARBOROUGH: ... and I certainly enjoyed the fact that public television allowed me to get on once a year and talk.

That's not a bad idea. We can discuss that. But along with that, if Al Gore wants to deliver that message along with a $7 billion slush fund that's going to steal from education and going to steal from taxpayers' money, then I've got a problem with that. I also have a problem with him being the messenger.

KANJORSKI: We're never going to get anywhere here if we start categorizing things as a $7 billion slush fund.

SCARBOROUGH: Well, that's exactly...

KANJORSKI: Now, you know that Mr. Gore...

PRESS: One at a time please.

KANJORSKI: Mr. Gore's suggestion is that it's a fund available to all candidates who run for office in order to take the methodology of raising money out of the system. It's not a slush fund.

SCARBOROUGH: OK. Well, let me ask you this...

KANJORSKI: And Joe, when you use emotionally charged words like that, we're going to destroy the entire discussion of a very important issue. SCARBOROUGH: Well, what concerns -- well, what concerns me is you say it's available to all candidates. I've heard other people say this already. I know that there are people that work hard in my district that would not want somebody like David Duke to get their taxpayer dollars to run a political campaign. That's a big possibility.

What if the Reverend Al Sharpton, who preaches hate from the left like David Duke preaches from the right, run again or talks about running for Congress? I know that people in my district don't want to do that. That's why there are some questions. Who regulates this slush fund?

KANJORSKI: And that's what we have to determine, and maybe that's not acceptable but it's already going to the idea that we know that the House of Representatives and the United States Senate today is being made up of instant millionaires who have decided they have the money to invest and buy seats. If we keep this on, hardly will the House be representative of the people. And the Senate is almost at 50 percent made up of millionaires today. And I think that raises a question for all of us.

Look, why don't we just address ourselves as to whether or not we have problems with campaign finance reform in the United States today? What can we do about it? How can we get the two presidential candidates to discuss the issue in an intelligent way and then be certain that it's prospective, that whatever we do is going to be effective two, four or six years out? But to anticipate that we have to do something to clean up which -- what will become a terrible disaster for American democracy if we don't address it.

SCARBOROUGH: I think that's positive, but at the same time, though, I don't think we can just say until the vice president steps forward and tells the truth about what happened at the Buddhist temple and until he talks about misleading the...

KANJORSKI: Joe, it doesn't matter.

SCARBOROUGH: Can I -- can I finish up?

PRESS: You can. Go ahead please.

SCARBOROUGH: It does matter. If Al Gore is coming forward saying that I'm this great exterminator and I'm going to clean up the mess, and at the same time he's got a lot of cockroaches flying out his back pocket at the same time he's spraying forth, I think Americans have a right to know what's in Al Gore's back pocket, what's in his background, and is he being truthful about this or is this just smoke and mirrors.

And you know what: I think we can all get together and talk about the corrupt policies of '96 and talk about how we clean up four years ahead of now. I've got no problem with that. I think, though, that we need to be honest and straightforward about what's happened and lay all our cards on the table and then talk about it from there. KANJORSKI: Joe, let me say to you that the largest fine levied in 1996 for laundering money was against the treasurer of the Dole campaign, and it took place in Pennsylvania, the district to the north of mine. So let's not delude ourselves that this is a single-party or a single-candidate problem.

We also have...

SCARBOROUGH: Let me tell you this...

KANJORSKI: ... George Bush who is running with...

SCARBOROUGH: Well, first of all...

KANJORSKI: ... unlimited funds.

MATALIN: All right. All right.

SCARBOROUGH: On that issue, there is no more...

MATALIN: Joe...

SCARBOROUGH: There is, first of all, there is no moral equivalency.

MATALIN: Joe, can we hold this?

SCARBOROUGH: No moral equivalency.

MATALIN: You know how -- you're absolutely right, Congressman Scarborough. Not even close. It pains me that we have to go to a break.

Let me just say this: We spend twice as much on potato chips and yogurt. So even is this plan -- if this man were credible, is the plan salient? Stay with us on CROSSFIRE to find out.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

MATALIN: Welcome back to CROSSFIRE. The vice president has made campaign finance reform the central priority of his presidential bid in an effort to inoculate himself from his biggest vulnerability and to attract McCain voters. How credible can Gore be on the source of multiple Clinton-era scandals and how salient is campaign finance reform?

Two experts from the Hill, pro-Gore Pennsylvania Congressman Paul Kanjorski and pro-Bush Congressman Florida Joe Scarborough -- Bill.

PRESS: Congressman Scarborough, maybe you can help me understand something. I think we know who the three nominees are going to be: Al Gore, Pat Buchanan, George W. Bush. Of the three, why is George Bush alone in opposing campaign reform?

SCARBOROUGH: Well, you know, actually, if you listened to CNN, you would know that back in February George Bush stepped forward with a campaign finance reform plan that I judge as the toughest, because I know it scares congressmen and congresswomen on Capitol Hill more than any other. And what it does is it says to Paul and myself and everybody else on Capitol Hill you can't raise money from PACs while you're in session. It places limits on soft money. It does a variety of other things that when he announced it, I'll be really honest with you, back in February, there were a lot of Republicans saying: "What's this guy doing? He's going to cut into our fund raising when we're on Capitol Hill."

And that's really where you -- that's really where you have the problems in fund raising, when you're fund raising during session and things like that.

So he put -- I thought he put a really, really good campaign finance plan out.

And also let me say one other thing: George W. Bush has been the most open person in the history of campaigns by immediately putting his contributions on the Internet the second he gets them. I think that's a positive example that Al Gore should follow.

PRESS: Well, I'm all for disclosure, but I want to come back to this plan, which you're so crazy about, Joe Scarborough.

SCARBOROUGH: No, I don't like it. I mean, it's tough.

PRESS: Well, that you think is tough, not the universal opinion.

You know, nobody, nobody has been tougher on Bill Clinton and Al Gore on the campaign finance scandals than The New York Times. Here's what they said this morning editorially about George Bush's plan, which they called, by the way, "a toothless sham." Quoting from this morning's...

SCARBOROUGH: But you -- you just said he didn't have one.

PRESS: I want to quote -- Joe, whoa, whoa. Wait. Wait. No, I'm going...

SCARBOROUGH: You just said five minutes ago he didn't have one.

PRESS: I don't think he does. And I want you -- I want to read to you what The New York Times said this morning about it.

SCARBOROUGH: You can't criticize what he doesn't have.

PRESS: Quote: "Mr. Bush's embrace of the reformer's label should be seen as cynical as long as the governor continues to reject the real thing. He says he would ban soft money from corporations and unions, but allow it from rich individuals. That is a loophole inviting any special interest to drive right through with truckloads of cash."

In fact, I repeat of the three candidates, George Bush is the only one with no plan for campaign reform. Why not?

SCARBOROUGH: Well, you -- and you just read a "New York Times" article that criticizes him.

You know, what's very interesting about The New York Times, who, by the way, I think has been very straightforward on the '96 scandals and should be commended for that. What's interesting is The New York Times will editorialize for campaign finance reform plans and say they're great so long as they don't touch the unions, so long as they allow unions to continue...

PRESS: Nothing to do with the unions.

SCARBOROUGH: ... to steal -- as long as they allow unions to continue to steal money from their workers and spend, gosh, $200 million on -- on independent expenditures that I have seen crush Republican candidates for the past six years. And that's a reality. And for some reason, Democrats don't want to talk about it. The New York Times doesn't want to talk about it...

KANJORSKI: Joe, we do want to talk about that.

SCARBOROUGH: Well, do you support paycheck protection? Well, do you support paycheck protection?

KANJORSKI: Do you support -- do you support that all corporations should have to get their stockholders' approval for making contributions.

SCARBOROUGH: Sure, that's...

KANJORSKI: It's a technical process...

(CROSSTALK)

SCARBOROUGH: They can -- they can certainly...

KANJORSKI: But let me show you, Joe. Joe, let me...

(CROSSTALK)

SCARBOROUGH: But you know, there's a difference, though, between...

(CROSSTALK)

PRESS: One at a time. Joe, one at a time please.

(CROSSTALK)

SCARBOROUGH: There's a difference, though, between stockholders...

KANJORSKI: Here's the evidence.

PRESS: Joe, one at a time.

SCARBOROUGH: There's a difference, though, between stockholders... PRESS: One at a time.

SCARBOROUGH: Let me just say one thing.

KANJORSKI: Wait, wait, wait. I understand, Joe. Let's look at the numbers.

SCARBOROUGH: There's a difference between stockholders and union members that you steal money from their pockets. And they're paying that.

KANJORSKI: This is such a false argument, Joe, it's ridiculous.

SCARBOROUGH: No, no.

KANJORSKI: I brought the numbers today.

(CROSSTALK)

PRESS: Joe, wait a minute, please. Congressman, congressmen, please. There has to be one at a time. I just have to say we've heard you. Please let the congressman respond.

KANJORSKI: Here's the response: $262 million to Republicans from the business community; $35 million from labor money to the Democratic community. The fact of the matter is we know your party needs more money because you're truly the minority party on issues and numbers. There's no question about that.

SCARBOROUGH: Ha!

KANJORSKI: But here's the reality: some six times as much.

MATALIN: Congressman, that -- Joe, let me respond.

SCARBOROUGH: That's false.

MATALIN: That's not the reality. Here's the headline: "Unions Mobilize to Beat Bush, Regain House." And they don't do it 35 million. As you know, they turn over hundreds of thousands of workers into the field, and the estimates are that they're worth as much as $500 billion to the process.

KANJORSKI: So I understand, Mary, what you would like to do is deny Americans from participating in political campaigns?

MATALIN: No, I would not. I would like the vice president to, if he wants to ban soft money, to ban all of the union participation.

KANJORSKI: Can I make a suggestion, that we all step aside? Obviously, we're never going to get to the issue of real campaign finance reform if we're talking about is it going to benefit a Republican or a Democrat in this coming election.

MATALIN: Correct. KANJORSKI: What the vice president is talking about is looking off prospectively in the future and saying what can we do to change what has become a recognized scandal in this town and around the country. Now, it's not well-understood by our constituents, but let's talk about the campaign in New York. It was sinful that the independent expenditures of $2 million came from Texas to kill Senator McCain in that primary?

PRESS: With all due respect, we can't go to New York. We can't go anywhere else, because you can see how easy this problem (UNINTELLIGIBLE) to solve, that we're already out of time and we haven't solved it. But we'll have some more debates ahead.

Congressman Kanjorski, thanks for coming back to CROSSFIRE. And Congressman Scarborough down there in Pensacola, see you back in Washington. Thanks for being on CROSSFIRE tonight.

SCARBOROUGH: Thanks a lot. Good to see you again, Bill.

PRESS: OK, guys. As usual, Mary Matalin and I will have the last word on who's real and who's not on campaign reform. Coming up, closing comments.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

MATALIN: Here is my favorite thing about this latest phony baloney Al Gore plan. The same rich people that you malign as greedy and those corporations that you malign also as greedy are going to fund this "democracy" endowment. There are all of these horrible, horrific, greedy entities that you loathe are now going to get a 100 percent tax write-off, which is going to cost taxpayers over $2 billion. The same people you hat you'll now love for this. And this is going to be Al Gore's No. 1 priority, not Social Security, not Medicare, not education, but campaign finance reform, which he has never ever going to get done.

PRESS: I think John McCain had it right, and that's why I think Al Gore is right, that the key to all of these other issues, if you want to do something about education, you want to do something about health care, you want to do something about labor law, the key is campaign reform. That's why he's right to make it No. 1.

And that fund, which I think is a good idea...

MATALIN: Bush got that all done in Texas without this.

PRESS: ... is not his No. 1 priority. The No. 1 is getting rid of soft money. And the fact is you can shoot the messenger all you want, but Gore wants to get rid of soft money and Bush doesn't and the American people know the difference. And they'll make a choice.

MATALIN: Can I -- as Gore did today...

PRESS: One's real and one's not.

MATALIN: ... lying about Bush's plan, lying about Bush's plan, you just did again.

PRESS: No, I didn't.

MATALIN: Yes...

PRESS: No, I did not.

MATALIN: ... he wants to ban soft money.

PRESS: He does not. From the left, I'm Bill Press. Face it. From the left, good night for CROSSFIRE.

MATALIN: No more lies from the left. I'm from the right. Mary Matalin, join us again tomorrow night for another edition of CROSSFIRE.

TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com