Countdown

Home > Interviews > Bob Dole

Bob Dole

Bob Dole, a Republican, was a U.S. senator from Kansas from 1969 through 1996 and the Senate Republican leader from 1985 through 1996. He was the Republican nominee for vice president in 1976, an unsuccessful candidate for the Republican presidential nomination in 1980 and 1988, and the Republican presidential nominee in 1996. Dole is now a special counsel in the Washington office of Alston & Bird, a 114-year-old law firm headquartered in Atlanta. His wife, Elizabeth Hanford Dole, is a first-term Republican U.S. senator from North Carolina.

Jules Witcover interviewed Dole on April 20, 2007.

Do you think the subsidy system is dead? Or do you think some candidates might still attempt to use it?

Well, I went back and checked, after I talked with you, about what we did in ’96. You probably already have that information. But I think in the primary we spent about $42 million, somewhere in that neighborhood. And then we got a $70 million subsidy check. And then we were able to spend about $10 million more from some kind of a legal thing with the RNC [Republican National Committee] or something. So that’s $80 million and $40 million.

That’s for the whole thing.

Yeah. Who is going to take the subsidy? I mean, maybe some will. Maybe Fred Thompson gets in late and can’t raise the money. Figures he can spend it all on February 5. But boy, when they raised $25 million in a quarter . . .

I don’t know where the end is. They say, what is it, [an] estimated $500 million to get the nomination? I mean, even Steve Forbes couldn’t spend that much money in ’96, and he spent a bundle. But I think the system is broken.

Do you see any way to put a lid on this?

I don’t know how you put a lid on it. They talked about all of this campaign-finance reform. And then all these 527s sprung up. So you didn’t really change anything. And now you can give more as an individual. Instead of $1,000, you can give $2,300 now.

A couple [can give] $4,600, which I think is probably OK. Because it’s adjusted for inflation, that doesn’t bother me. But when it’s millions and millions of dollars . . .

Now, some won’t take money from lobbyists — I think [Barack] Obama, for example, maybe [John] McCain. I don’t know. But who knows who is a lobbyist when you have a fundraiser and 500 people show up? And they are going to check you at the door if you’ve got your ID card saying you are not a lobbyist? I mean, it’s a little crazy anyway. I mean, being a lobbyist doesn’t mean you can’t participate and do it properly.

Sure. There are ways. There are plenty of ways. Do you think that the Internet can be a substitute for the subsidy? Could enough money be raised on the Internet to make up for that loss?

Yeah. Well, see, that’s sort of out of my generation. We don’t understand the Internet as well as this young guy. But it’s paying off for a lot of people. I don’t know. You can announce your candidacy, as Hillary did, on the Internet. I mean, it changed just in the short time since ’96, and even since 2000. Who used the Internet in 2000 pretty effectively?

Howard Dean, I guess it was in 2004.

Yeah. Yeah. That’s how Dean got where he was. So it’s coming into the forefront. And I don’t know what YouTube and all of these other things do to it, and all of the bloggers. I mean, we never heard of the word blogger in ’96, or ’88, or ’76.

Thank God for that.

You’d think it was some disease.

Well, you might say that.

Yeah. Well, it is, too, in a way, I guess.

The people in my business, you could say that.

But you have a blog, probably.

No, I don’t. Nope.

No. Well, I don’t either. They’re not hard to get, though.

The question is, do you think there is enough of this free media out there now — bloggers, the Internet, these special sites — to make it possible to run with less money?

I don’t know. I hope so. I think it does make it possible. Again, I’ll use Fred Thompson as an example. For somebody to come in late and get a big splash of attention, not just from the regular media but from the bloggers, and the Internet, and all of the other sources, that might sustain them for a while while they are out there trying to raise money. I don’t know what you are going to substitute for money. And 70 percent of it goes back to broadcasters.

Do you think anything can be done about getting free [air]time? That would save a big chunk of money, wouldn’t it?

Oh, yeah.

What incentive could you give the networks?

We tried to work on that. I think Senator [George J.] Mitchell and I were kicking around something like that. The two of us worked on campaign-finance reform. We can never find anything anybody agreed to. But that was one of the pieces of it. But they have tried [free airtime]. They have tried, what was it, CBS or somebody. I remember in ’96 I was on three or four times. I don’t think I had ever really . . .

Like a debate?

I don’t remember precisely. I would be on the tail end of the evening news or something. I never really made any big splash. Who was the guy pushing for that? He’s still around. I think he was at The Washington Post.

Oh, he’s not there any more. Paul Taylor was his name.

Yeah. That’s it. I don’t know what happened to that.

Well, it’s still going. Walter Cronkite is involved in it and a couple of other people.

Yeah. He was involved in it.

But I don’t know, when Taylor left, I think the air kind of went out of it. I haven’t heard much about it.

But the broadcasters and the radio, the other point of view, I don’t think they want to do too much of that if they can sell it to you.

Talk a little bit about money as access to a candidate. What’s been your experience before ’76, before there was a subsidy, when you could give out whatever you wanted to give? What was your experience in those days? And after that, what [did] people expect to get from you as a candidate? And did they ever make any overt proposals to you about if you can give me this, I will give you this?

I think that’s implied sometimes, that so-and-so is going to host this fundraiser for you. Well, it’s the sugar guys down in Florida, the [Fanjul] brothers. One’s a Democrat and one’s a Republican. But they are big in the sugar business. And the implication is — it’s been in the press — if they host one of your . . . in fact they raised money for me in, I think, ’95 or ’96. And there is a story on it. This guy has got a big interest in sugar subsidies or something. I don’t know of anybody just flat out says, “If I give you X, I want Y.” It may have happened.

Well, what about just plain access?

In the old days, I have been around when they passed around cash. And I remember way back there, when it was legal, one of the Senators gave me $5,000 in cash. Of course, he was also running for leadership post. So it wasn’t just happening, but it was legitimate.

Helped you make up your mind, did it?

Yeah. Just in case you are undecided, while you are eating with us, or whatever. In those days, $5,000 was a lot of money. I mean, God, that was way back in 1970. I don’t know. But it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure out that some people are in this for what they hope the benefits will be to them. A lot of people are in it — well, maybe just the majority — just because they believe in you. And they are never going to contact you about anything. But there are always some. And they are in both parties. And they are in it for something — either their business, or legislation, or an ambassadorship. There used to be a rule of thumb: You had to give so much to be an ambassador. I don’t know what the cost is now, if there is such a thing. But now is that bad? It probably depends on how it’s done.

Well, how can you do it in a good way?

I don’t know how you can do it in a good way. I mean, boy, when they raise — and I guess the difference was they give you $500 or $50,000 — it doesn’t make any difference if they made some kind of a deal with you. It may not be the amount. But when somebody gives you [money] or has a fundraiser, and you walk out of there with a couple of million bucks, I mean, you have got to remember that person’s name, and probably address, and e-mail, and everything else.

Social Security number also, right? Maybe a Social Security number, too.

Yeah. Maybe Social Security number, height, weight, shirt size, whatever. And he or she probably gets frequent calls and invited to do things in the campaign.

What do you think about this phenomenon called bundling? A money-raiser goes out and gets the . . .

This is the big thing that — was it Bill Bradley? — fought against all of the time, bundling?

I think he did, yeah.

Where one guy goes out and gathers it up like a harvest. He goes around his law firm, every floor. And he picks up $1,000, $2,000. When he gets through the whole building, he may have $30,000 or $40,000. I thought that was illegal, bundling, under the campaign-finance [reforms].

No, it’s not, as long as it’s limited to the amount of money that can be given.

And it’s legal?

It’s legal.

Well, bundling is one of things they were trying to stop.

527s can also get involved in that. And that’s where they get a lot of money.

Well, wasn’t it illegal for a while? It seemed like in ’96 we couldn’t do that.

I don’t remember. Well, after all, that’s what the current president has done, in 2000 and 2004, setting up these groups, the Pioneers and the Rangers, and they gave $100,000 or $200,000. And as long as it wasn’t out of their own pockets . . .

Yeah. They agreed to raise a hundred [thousand dollars]. I guess they don’t have to have a fundraiser, just call all of their friends. Send an e-mail now: send a check to . . . I am just happy I am not in it in this day and age. I thought it was tough enough.

What do you think about the frontloading of the primaries and the impact that’s going to have on the money situation?

Well, obviously that helps the well-known, well-funded candidates. If somebody out there might be a real star in either party, doesn’t have the cachet, or the name, whatever, he’s probably never going to have a real shot, because it’s in effect a national primary. After February 5, it’s over. And a lot of people have advocated national primaries or reasonable primaries. Like this round would be [John] McCain and [Hillary] Clinton. But the campaign has been so long, I guess there are probably three top-tier candidates in each party now. So it may not make quite the impact. Michigan just switched, and New York, and Texas . . .

New York, New Jersey, California . . .

New Jersey is always last. I mean, they were always. Our little state of Kansas, I think we are in April. There won’t be anybody flying over Kansas.

Do you think that moving everything up front and having that so-called national primary, is that a good idea? And what is wrong with it if it’s not a good idea?

What I worry about is the — I am trying to think of the right word — that long, long, long period between February 5 and November. I mean, there is going to be voter fatigue.

That’s what hit you, right? It was a problem for you in that period.

Yeah. I had that big, long gap. And what do you do? I mean, are they going to start running negative ads in March? I think it could have sort of a voter backlash, unless both candidates agree to take four months off and go to Australia or somewhere together.

Don’t hold your breath on that one.

No, no. But look, that’s really going to be eight, nine months. It’s just a long stretch. I assume it’s going to be over February 5. I can’t believe there will be many standing after that.

How late do you think somebody can get in and still be a viable candidate?

Oh, I think the time is pretty short. I don’t know who is out there other than, well, you have the Mayor of New York [Michael Bloomberg], maybe, as independent, and maybe [Tommy] Thompson. Well, Newt [Gingrich], but he’s not going to get in.

I don’t think so. Al Gore is . . .

Well, Al Gore, he could get in later. I see he runs third in some of these polls. But you know better than anybody, you are the expert. Polls don’t mean a damn thing right now. But the media are always going to be [saying], “Next time we are going to talk about the issues.” But every week there is a new poll out. Fox and CBS had one yesterday showing Hillary 10 points ahead of [Rudy] Giuliani. And it’s always a horserace.

What do you think happened to McCain?

I don’t know. I think, probably the same in my case, maybe you have reached a point where you have been around too long. You are not a fresh face. And things can change since he first ran a straightforward express.

And then supporting the war, probably, is not a big plus. I mean, it shows commitment, conviction, and a lot of things that you might expect from McCain. But the people aren’t there right now. Unless there is some big success here in the next six or eight months, that’s going to be a big anchor. And he has raised about half the money as some of the [others]. [Mitt] Romney raised about 23 or 24 [million dollars]. And he’s raised 12 [million dollars].

What’s your feeling, having gone through this, about this campaign industry that has grown up? Paid consultants, paid media people, paid time-buyers, paid everything.

I remember in my campaign, the day after I lost, I am not even sure some of these guys said goodbye. They just went on to the next body: “Well, so long buddy. We took all we could from you, but we’ll find somebody new.” And I guess you need these people. I don’t know if you need as many as end up in every campaign.

The guy who ran your campaign was either your brother-in-law, or your law partner, or some good friend who had a personal interest in you.

Oh, yeah.

He ran your campaign. When the campaign was over, he went back and did what he did before. Now you have this whole community where it’s their livelihood. And some of them don’t have much connection with the candidate.

Yeah. All they need is an IPO [initial public offering]. They just ought to go public. And I don’t want to demean them at all, but I think it’s a job for them. And they obviously want to do their best. But when it’s over, as I said, I don’t say they don’t care, but Bob Dole lost so let’s go knock on some doors for the next one. And I guess that’s what they have to do if they are in that business. They can’t sit around with a loser and commiserate for the next two years. But it’s gone beyond a cottage industry. Now it’s sort of a Donald Trump [industry]. It’s reached that aura.

Of course, that drives the cost of the campaign up, usually, having all of these people.

I don’t know.

You have this business where people who are consultants are also buying time. They are getting commissions.

They get 17.5 percent or something.

I don’t know what they get. But it’s amazing.

Oh, it’s so big. Yeah. They would buy the time for you. And they would get a big chunk of that. I mean, if you are in that business, I guess it must be a pretty good one.

And if your candidate wins, then you are really in the front row, because you can have better people and lose. But if you have worse people and win, they are all experts. I mean, they are in big demand, because they won the governor’s race, or the senator’s race, or the president’s race.

It’s like baseball. If you are a .200 hitter, nobody wants to put you on their team.

That’s right. It’s like JFK said, “Defeat is an orphan.” Nobody around. You all look around, where are all my consultants? Well, they all left. You lost.

What do you think is the impact of negative campaigning, in terms of money? Does more money create more negative campaigning? And does it have to be that way?

Well, I think it’s gotten to the point of if I can destroy my opponent before my opponent destroys me. It is sort of the last man standing. And I remember, of course, in ’96 every ad was me and Gingrich together. And one thing about when you are a sitting Senator, I don’t care which party, you have always got a record. And you always pick out one little vote in a $25 billion bill that you voted for. And I think that’s what they tell you. You go out and define yourself before your opponent does.

That’s why, again, I think somebody like Thompson should get in this thing. He has a certain advantage. He hasn’t been on this treadmill for the past six or eight months. And he comes in sort of as a fresh face, and a lot of people don’t know him. In some ways he kind of reminds me a little of an Eisenhower quality, and sort of laid-back. But we’ll see what happens.

What was your impression of him in the Senate? He wasn’t any gangbuster in the Senate, was he?

He was smart. But he wasn’t looking for headlines. He wasn’t running for something else.

I have also heard that he wasn’t into heavy lifting, either.

I don’t know. [We had] just a working relationship and I thought he was pretty good. I think that’s because he voted with me a lot. I found him easy to work with. And I thought he worked pretty hard.

Well, he’s got that Tennessee mafia down there. They raise a lot of money.

Yeah. What does he have? Is Howard [Baker] sort of the leader?

He seems to be. Yeah.

Yeah. [Baker] is speaking at the [Robert J.] Dole Institute [of Politics at the University of Kansas]. He called me yesterday to tell me he was going to speak Sunday. We just had [Walter] Mondale out there, so a little balance. So I said, “Well, is Fred going to run?” “Well, I don’t know.” He probably knows more than he’s telling anybody. But he thinks so.

He thinks he is? Howard thinks [Thompson] is going to run?

Yeah. But again, who knows? I mean a lot of people, apparently some — was it Zach Wamp in the House who started pushing the House members up there?

Yeah. Of course, I know you have got to go. But there is one other question I want to ask you. When you were running, and before you were running for president, did you do a lot of fundraising for yourself? Did you spend a lot of time on the telephone like some of these guys do?

Oh, I hated it. It always seemed to me, when I call up somebody on the telephone, and I am the Republican leader, either the majority or minority leader, and say, “Wouldn’t you like to give me X dollars?” “What’s it for?” the person is going to say. Here they are talking to the majority leader of the Senate. Are you going to say no? I hated to make phone calls.

So you do it without a gun.

I wouldn’t mind calling for Rudy Boschwitz or somebody else.

Hey, that’s one guy you wouldn’t have to call for.

I know. He’d be calling you. Yeah, that’s probably why he lost: He was so busy helping everybody else. But for somebody else, I could do it. But for myself, I didn’t make many calls. I just wouldn’t do it. I just couldn’t do it.

I once was writing a piece about Rudy Boschwitz and I went to see him in — Minnesota or Wisconsin . . .

Minnesota.

Minnesota. And instead of going around with him or anything, I had to sit outside his office while he was making phone calls for about two or three hours.

Yeah. Oh, he loved that stuff.

He and Alan Cranston were the champions.

Yeah, Cranston.

They liked it.

Yeah. Well, that’s great, if you can do it. I mean there’s nothing wrong with it. It’s legal as long as you don’t do it in the Capitol building. If you go off to the Democratic headquarters or Republican [headquarters], somebody is there to get it all dialed up. And all you have to do is: “Hello. Hello. This is so-and-so.” And it pays off.

I guess it’s easier if you are calling as a Republican leader and you are asking for somebody else, than asking for yourself.

Yeah. And the easiest part is to get somebody else to make the calls. Say, “I have a campaign finance chairman, and it’s up to you now to get our quota.” And I’ll show up to fund-raise. But don’t ask me to make any phone calls. I may call and see if somebody will do a fundraiser. But start dialing for dollars, I guess maybe that was a weakness for me.

Do you think that’s what cost you the election?

Probably partly, yeah.