Return to Transcripts main page
CNN Saturday Morning News
Interview With Michael Weisskopf, Rick Dunham
Aired March 23, 2002 - 09:38 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.
KYRA PHILLIPS, CNN ANCHOR: The Senate-approved campaign finance reform bill has yet to be signed by the president, but opponents of the bill have already launched a legal challenge.
MILES O'BRIEN, CNN ANCHOR: Joining us now to talk about the pros and cons of the reform effort and to answer your questions, Michael Weisskopf of "TIME" -- "TIME" magazine or -- yes, "TIME" magazine. We know that magazine, our sister publication at CNN. And Rick Dunham of "Business Week" magazine, no affiliation with CNN whatsoever.
Good to have you both with us.
MICHAEL WEISSKOPF, "TIME" MAGAZINE: Good to be with you.
RICK DUNHAM, "BUSINESS WEEK" MAGAZINE: Good to be here.
O'BRIEN: Hi. Lots of e-mails. This first one comes from a name which might be familiar to your all, from Miles O'Brien in Vero Beach. My dad. We'll let Dad get in one here.
PHILLIPS: Big supporter of our morning program.
O'BRIEN: Dad, who normally is watching the Fox News network at this moment, has managed to tune in for this. "The First Amendment to our Constitution was adopted primarily to protect political speech. How can McCain-Feingold be construed as anything but an abridgement of this very special right?"
And just to offer equal time on the other side, from another e- mailer, from Frank Wells, no relation to me, "How is the defense of the obscene use of money to buy the government as free speech any less perverse than contending that the founding fathers intended to protect the pornography of Hefner, Flynt, Guccione, and their ilk as free speech?"
OK, the free speech argument. Michael, you go first.
WEISSKOPF: Well, this is the big tradeoff, whether or not any type of compromise of expression is more serious in constitutional terms than whatever corrosion these unrestricted campaign contributions leave our system with. And so this is where the -- this is the judicial rub, and will become probably the center point for lots of judicial argument...
O'BRIEN: Rick, would you say, what about the constitutionality of all this?
DUNHAM: Well, remember, the Supreme Court has ruled in the past that there can be restrictions on free speech when it comes to politics. The last campaign reform set $1,000 limit on individual contributions. So it's not a question of whether there are unlimited contributions, it's where the line is where giving so much money means that it's more than free speech, it's -- you have more, more power than others because you can give as much as you want?
WEISSKOPF: And I think the strongest argument there will be in the case of the 60-day ban on advertising, it's political advertising, supposedly of an issue nature that is part of this legislation, and the constitutionals, constitutionalists will be aiming especially sharply at that one.
O'BRIEN: All right...
PHILLIPS: Phone calls. Yes, Joe from Georgia is on the line. Go ahead, Joe.
CALLER: Yes, thank you very much, and my question was along the same lines. You have a great show, by the way. Can this bill -- what -- do you think it's possible that the courts will strike down certain provisions of this bill because of restrictions on free speech?
DUNHAM: Well, the bill was written so that if individual parts of it are struck down, that the rest of it can still stay intact. But I think that the one that Michael was just talking about is the biggest risk, because it restricts the speech in the days before the election. I think other of the changes will be upheld, but that one is really at risk.
And there are a couple of other provisions that could be struck down. But it's an open question. The court has never ruled on anything quite like it, so it's hard to predict right now.
O'BRIEN: All right. Let's take an e-mail, this one from Hasan Ahmad in Toronto, a frequent e-mailer, we appreciate that, Hasan. "Why is it that most of the soft money and other financial funding comes to Republicans rather than Democrats? And is that one of the reasons they win in the ways they do?
O'BRIEN: Rick?
WEISSKOPF: Actually, that's a little bit...
O'BRIEN: Or Mike? All right.
WEISSKOPF: ... that's a little bit reversed. The Democrats do proportionately better on soft money because they don't have the sophisticated direct mail system of Republicans. Republicans have been very skillful and advanced in terms of reaching people and updating their lists. Apparently the average age of the Republican donor is 48, whereas it's 68 for Democrats, showing how old those lists are. DUNHAM: And one of the interesting things too is that the Republicans in the House said this was Armageddon if it passes, but actually President Bush will be one of the big beneficiaries, because he had so many small contributions in the last election. He had more contributions from individuals than anyone in history, and so actually it gives the president a big advantage for 2004.
PHILLIPS: Another question, gentlemen, this one from Larry in Florida. "Does campaign finance reform have more to do with getting a candidate into office, of what he does after he gets there, or both? In either case, will reform change what average voters have to do -- grovel, write letters, and hope -- to get any beneficial legislation passed?"
Michael?
WEISSKOPF: We're all interconnected, because certainly how much and how one raises money often determines the kind of race you run.
But more importantly, once you're in office, it's how you treat people who gave to you. And this is where McCain-Feingold really put their emphasis. If -- as we saw in the Enron case, big donors lead to, lead to suspicions that they have undue influence. And so the politician who is trying to make decisions has to look at people coming in with that in mind.
O'BRIEN: All right. We are -- let's see, we've got a phone call...
PHILLIPS: We sure do.
O'BRIEN: ... we want to get one Enron-Andersen question in before we do that.
So let me do a quick e-mail, and then we'll go the phone call. Katherine O'Neill has this for us. "How can the DOJ," the Department of Justice, "justify indicting a firm of 85,000" -- meaning Andersen -- "before indicting any individuals at Enron or Andersen? They must have known their actions would put even more pressure on clients to leave Andersen. Are they looking for a scapegoat?"
Rick, you want to go with that?
DUNHAM: I think it's fair to say that the administration wants to set an example. President Bush over his political career has always talked about enforcing laws that are on the books before you pass new ones, and I do think that the administration and Congress would both like to set examples so other corporations think twice before individuals do the same kinds of things, but again, there are going to be serious consequences for the Andersen employees who weren't involved in this at all.
And it's really a good question for John Ashcroft or for his deputy, why they decided to indict the corporation rather than to go after individuals.
PHILLIPS: Rick Dunham, "Business Week" magazine, and Michael Weisskopf, "TIME" magazine...
O'BRIEN: Oh, yes, we have time for one more phone call.
PHILLIPS: We do?
O'BRIEN: Yes.
PHILLIPS: OK.
O'BRIEN: Let's do the phone call.
(CROSSTALK)
O'BRIEN: Who's on the line?
PHILLIPS: ... told to wrap, sorry about that. We're going to go to a call in New Mexico. Steve, go ahead.
CALLER: Yes, hi. I was wondering, this seems like a good first step, but do you think that better ballot access laws for third parties and independents and also public financing would help bring more competition to elections, and thus better elections?
WEISSKOPF: Little chance of ever getting past Congress. Politicians feel uncomfortable in asking the public to finance their reelection efforts. As first steps go, however, don't make judgments too quickly. All this is going to do is shift the influence from the guys who get it now to the new ones who are resourceful enough to figure out how to gain this system.
O'BRIEN: All right, gentlemen, thank you very much.
PHILLIPS: Yes, we're getting so many e-mails. Obviously we'll continue this discussion.
O'BRIEN: Yes, yes. Sorry we can't get them all on, but we do appreciate your interest and your participation in our program. Michael Weisskopf, Rick Dunham, thanks for taking those questions for us. Maybe we'll have you back some time and do more of the same.
PHILLIPS: Thanks, guys.
TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com
