Return to Transcripts main page

Live From...

Supreme Court Hears Arguments on Soft Money

Aired September 08, 2003 - 14:3   ET

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

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


MILES O'BRIEN, CNN ANCHOR: All right, so here's a question for you, what does the U.S. Supreme Court have to do with the 2004 presidential election? Settle down now, we're not talk chads here. At this point it's really all about the money. How much and what kind can help finance a candidate's campaign?
Now right now the high court is hearing arguments over Congressional attempts to ban soft money, it's an issue that has the ACLU and the NRA on the same team. House that for strange bedfellows?

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. MITCH MCCONNELL (R), KENTUCKY: It was clear that based on the number of interruptions that everyone in the court was extremely well prepared, understood the significance of this litigation in terms of the free speech rights of political parties, and of individual groups. So we are guardedly optimistic.

SEN. ROSS FEINGOLD (D), WISCONSIN: Our goal was never to prevent people from being able to participate in the political process. The purpose here was to prevent the connection between those who have the votes and unlimited contributions -- $100,000, half million, million- dollar contributions. That's what this is about, that's what the court has written about in the past.

Our goal has never been to prevent the American people from having a free marketplace of ideas and people to contribute to independent groups. That's the critical distinction.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

O'BRIEN: Remember Ken Starr? He's arguing against the soft money ban. Solicitor General Ted Olson is defending the law.

So let's get a little perspective on all, shall we? Senior Political Analyst Bill Schneider, who I believe -- you've actually testified before the Supreme Court in the past, haven't you?

WILLIAM SCHNEIDER, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL ANALYST: Not that I can recall.

O'BRIEN: Good answer!

All right, let's -- first of all, why the urgency? The justices came back about four weeks early from their summer break just to handle this issue. A rapid return on the ruling, perhaps by November, let's say, maybe December. Why so much hurry in all this?

SCHNEIDER: Well, Miles, in case you hadn't heard there's a presidential campaign coming up and the first vote's going to be cast in January, that's when the primaries start. So the court has to determine what the rules are for campaign contributions before the campaign begins. You can't have a contest without knowing the rules.

O'BRIEN: All right, meantime, the McCain-Feingold rules are kind of the de facto rules, are they not?

SCHNEIDER: That's right. The court, they passed Congress, the court decide not to stop it while it's on appeal. So at the moment, the McCain-Feingold Campaign Finance Reform Rules are in effect, pending the decision by the Supreme Court.

O'BRIEN: All right. The idea of McCain-Feingold is a noble one. And that is to eliminate the influence peddling that goes on in Capitol Hill and involved in all these presidential elections. What have been the unintended consequences which has led to this debate?

SCHNEIDER: Well certainly one unintended consequence is that the Democrats supported this reform and then they discovered suddenly that they're in a predicament because they were able, they had been able in previous years to match the Republicans in raising those unlimited soft money contributions to the Democratic Party.

You could have, before this reform, given unlimited amounts of money to the political party, and Democrats did very well from big givers which enabled them to be competitive with Republicans. But now those contributions are banned. And on smaller contributions given in limited amount, Republicans actually out raised Democrats. So Democrats suddenly find that they prohibited a form of contribution which did them a lot of good.

O'BRIEN: At the very core of the issue, the Constitutional portion of all of this, if you will, is the statement or the theory that money equals free speech. True or false?

SCHNEIDER: That's the way -- that's what the Supreme -- a lot of justices on the Supreme Court and on other federal courts argued, that money is speech.

I can tell you the American people, we just polled them on this, said they don't see that. They think money and speech are different things. But courts say -- and some members of the court say that if you have money you ought to be able to spend as much money you like, give it to any campaign you want, it's a form of free speech.

And that's is what the people challenging this reform are saying. They are saying that it is an impingement on people's free speech rights to spend whatever money they have to defend their point of view.

O'BRIEN: So why not just completely regulate the process because every time something is unregulated in one arena another series of loopholes pops up elsewhere? SCHNEIDER: Well even though reformers like Senator John McCain argue that this reform won't last forever, every time they reform it like they did after the Watergate outrages of the 1970s, new loopholes are discovered. And in fact soft money is one of those loopholes. So McCain says, You know, in 20 years we're going have to revisit this again because there are going to yet be more loopholes. It's a process, it's not a reform that's going to last forever.

O'BRIEN: Bill Schneider, thanks as always for your insights. Appreciate it.

SCHNEIDER: Sure.

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






Aired September 8, 2003 - 14:3   ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
MILES O'BRIEN, CNN ANCHOR: All right, so here's a question for you, what does the U.S. Supreme Court have to do with the 2004 presidential election? Settle down now, we're not talk chads here. At this point it's really all about the money. How much and what kind can help finance a candidate's campaign?
Now right now the high court is hearing arguments over Congressional attempts to ban soft money, it's an issue that has the ACLU and the NRA on the same team. House that for strange bedfellows?

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. MITCH MCCONNELL (R), KENTUCKY: It was clear that based on the number of interruptions that everyone in the court was extremely well prepared, understood the significance of this litigation in terms of the free speech rights of political parties, and of individual groups. So we are guardedly optimistic.

SEN. ROSS FEINGOLD (D), WISCONSIN: Our goal was never to prevent people from being able to participate in the political process. The purpose here was to prevent the connection between those who have the votes and unlimited contributions -- $100,000, half million, million- dollar contributions. That's what this is about, that's what the court has written about in the past.

Our goal has never been to prevent the American people from having a free marketplace of ideas and people to contribute to independent groups. That's the critical distinction.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

O'BRIEN: Remember Ken Starr? He's arguing against the soft money ban. Solicitor General Ted Olson is defending the law.

So let's get a little perspective on all, shall we? Senior Political Analyst Bill Schneider, who I believe -- you've actually testified before the Supreme Court in the past, haven't you?

WILLIAM SCHNEIDER, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL ANALYST: Not that I can recall.

O'BRIEN: Good answer!

All right, let's -- first of all, why the urgency? The justices came back about four weeks early from their summer break just to handle this issue. A rapid return on the ruling, perhaps by November, let's say, maybe December. Why so much hurry in all this?

SCHNEIDER: Well, Miles, in case you hadn't heard there's a presidential campaign coming up and the first vote's going to be cast in January, that's when the primaries start. So the court has to determine what the rules are for campaign contributions before the campaign begins. You can't have a contest without knowing the rules.

O'BRIEN: All right, meantime, the McCain-Feingold rules are kind of the de facto rules, are they not?

SCHNEIDER: That's right. The court, they passed Congress, the court decide not to stop it while it's on appeal. So at the moment, the McCain-Feingold Campaign Finance Reform Rules are in effect, pending the decision by the Supreme Court.

O'BRIEN: All right. The idea of McCain-Feingold is a noble one. And that is to eliminate the influence peddling that goes on in Capitol Hill and involved in all these presidential elections. What have been the unintended consequences which has led to this debate?

SCHNEIDER: Well certainly one unintended consequence is that the Democrats supported this reform and then they discovered suddenly that they're in a predicament because they were able, they had been able in previous years to match the Republicans in raising those unlimited soft money contributions to the Democratic Party.

You could have, before this reform, given unlimited amounts of money to the political party, and Democrats did very well from big givers which enabled them to be competitive with Republicans. But now those contributions are banned. And on smaller contributions given in limited amount, Republicans actually out raised Democrats. So Democrats suddenly find that they prohibited a form of contribution which did them a lot of good.

O'BRIEN: At the very core of the issue, the Constitutional portion of all of this, if you will, is the statement or the theory that money equals free speech. True or false?

SCHNEIDER: That's the way -- that's what the Supreme -- a lot of justices on the Supreme Court and on other federal courts argued, that money is speech.

I can tell you the American people, we just polled them on this, said they don't see that. They think money and speech are different things. But courts say -- and some members of the court say that if you have money you ought to be able to spend as much money you like, give it to any campaign you want, it's a form of free speech.

And that's is what the people challenging this reform are saying. They are saying that it is an impingement on people's free speech rights to spend whatever money they have to defend their point of view.

O'BRIEN: So why not just completely regulate the process because every time something is unregulated in one arena another series of loopholes pops up elsewhere? SCHNEIDER: Well even though reformers like Senator John McCain argue that this reform won't last forever, every time they reform it like they did after the Watergate outrages of the 1970s, new loopholes are discovered. And in fact soft money is one of those loopholes. So McCain says, You know, in 20 years we're going have to revisit this again because there are going to yet be more loopholes. It's a process, it's not a reform that's going to last forever.

O'BRIEN: Bill Schneider, thanks as always for your insights. Appreciate it.

SCHNEIDER: Sure.

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