Countdown

Home > Interviews > Edward M. Kennedy

Edward M. Kennedy

Edward M. Kennedy, a Democrat, has been a U.S. senator from Massachusetts since 1962, when he was elected in a special election to replace his brother, President John F. Kennedy. He was a candidate for the 1980 Democratic presidential nomination.

Jules Witcover interviewed Kennedy on September 21, 2007.

Let me start by having you talk a little bit about the state of the campaign-finance system and whether you think it’s dead or could be salvageable, or should be salvageable.

Well, I think it’s disastrous in terms of our democracy. As someone who started in public life in the ’60s and saw that the great challenge was to knock down walls of discrimination, which we did; knock down walls of discrimination on the basis of race and religion, which we did; strong support for voting; strong opposition to the Congress when they tried to override Baker v. Carr, the one-person, one-vote [decision].

Remember? [Republican] Senator [Howard] Baker [of Tennessee] and I overrode that conference report the first time to make one vote count. The principal sponsor of the 18-year-old vote in the wake of the whole Vietnam War, recognizing participation and involvement, was key to our whole democracy functioning and working.

And what we saw as we came on through in the Watergate period, is as we were opening up the lines of democracy in this country to get more and more involvement of people, whether it’s blacks or browns or younger voters that have been shut out of the system, that now we find the principal instrument that was shutting people out was campaign financing.

One of the important efforts that I had here in the United States Senate was with [Republican Senator] Hugh Scott [of Pennsylvania] and [Republican Senator Robert] Stafford [of Vermont] in 1973, to have public financing of all elections, presidential elections, House elections, Senate elections. We overrode a filibuster in the Senate. We got stalemated in 1973; we had a filibuster. We overrode that filibuster and then got into the conference with the House of Representatives. This was basically a rules committee because of the campaign financing.

But as principal architect of that program, I was appointed on the rules committee. And we ran into, basically, a brick wall with the House of Representatives, a lot of people in that House of Representatives: [Democrat] John Brademas [of Indiana], enlightened; [Democratic Representative] Frank Thompson [of New Jersey], who was an enlightened figure. He got himself in trouble later on, but very enlightened.

And the whole list of that committee was a very enlightened. But they could not see how they were going to fund an opponent. And a lot of this was my own Massachusetts delegation that had the oldest delegation, the longest-serving delegation with [Democratic Representative] Tip O’Neill at the top, and how they were going to justify that every two years they were going to fund an opponent for them.

Once we broke out of that, they said, “Look, we are not going to do it for the House.” And then that made it impossible to have public financing for the Senate. So the settlement in that conference was public financing for the presidential [election], and a voter registration card. The voter registration card got filibustered by the Republicans and never went through. And it eventually emerged as Motor Voter. But it took a long time to do it.

We had the public financing for the presidential campaigns. And that was eventually struck down with the [ Buckley v.] Valeo case. In this legislation, we took into consideration primaries. I think we had eight or nine cents per primary voter, about 10 or 12 cents for a regular voter. I think in Massachusetts that would have been, if you had the inflator or whatever, at that time about $3.5 million.

So you had enough for a good campaign at that time. You had eight or nine weeks of television, which is more than enough, sufficient points. I mean, I can’t translate it in terms of inflation and non-inflation at this time. We had considerations for primaries with the states that had single-party provisions in this. And this was really well thought out. The total cost over four years was something like $1.2 billion or so for House, Senate, presidential elections.

[For] payments to the candidates?

For all Senate candidates, and the presidential campaigns was the estimate. I looked at the dates on it. And I haven’t had the chance to look at the exact figures. But that’s about right.

Now the fact remains that the Ways and Means Committee and the Finance Committee tragically give several billion dollars a year out to special interests. And that’s real money. And the idea we have been unable to convince people is to say, look, this is the public money, but it should go for the public purpose of the integrity of the election process. When they are giving money that goes out, [it] is many times that amount that goes for the special interest. But the political leadership was unable to do that.

[Democratic Senator] Russell Long [of Louisiana] had those say: “Well, what about my Uncle Louis? He might decide to run. And he’ll pick up all of this. And he’ll be able to go down, do what he always likes to do: drink beer, bet on races. How is this going to stop?” Well, we have ways of dealing with all of these issues.

Finally, Russell Long, as you know in ’72, supported, when we had been working on this, the dollar checkoff. I mean, that was the first movement that he had. I asked [my aide] to go back and look at those debates on it because I know we were very much involved in those first debates, when he finally went for the dollar checkoff as a way to fund this part. And we went for the escalation.

[Democratic Senator] Fritz Hollings [of South Carolina] was the very powerful voice that said the only way that you are really ever going to get into the public financing is by changing the First Amendment. I have always been very, very reluctant to change the First Amendment. I remember talking to [Solicitor General] Archibald Cox about that a number of years ago. He is deceased, and I don’t want to represent what he said. But I think he was a great defender of the First Amendment, but enormously troubled by this whole movement. This was the time that we were looking at McCain-Feingold and some of the other reforms that were coming. And he was committed to trying to see those through.

You don’t think it’s ever possible to revisit Buckley v. Valeo?

Well, you have to change the attitude of the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court changed in the ’30s on the Commerce Clause; they shifted and completely changed. It’s an attitudinal aspect. They are equivalent to saying this is the equivalent of speech. That has to be altered or changed. It’s a shift in terms of mentality. They have demonstrated, historically, where they have shifted in the past. But it’s going to take a monumental shift of that nature, not overturning things, but a shift about money.

I think the courts completely missed the issue in terms of the democracy. And since that time, we have been part of all of the reforms. But they have been nipping along the edges. I mean, it isn’t the macro issue. I think we had one vote on complete public financing. I think it actually was [Democratic Senator] John Kerry. I think it got 35 votes or something, some years ago.

Now I think the most interesting things being done in this area are at the state levels. And we are sort of watching those carefully. But that and indifference are the two greatest dangers to American democracy, and I think the funding. Now there are those who say: “Look, there is a new day today. There is the Internet.” And there are those who say: “Look at what happened with [the late Democratic Senator] Paul Wellstone. He couldn’t raise any money.” Then finally, his vote on the war caught on. And he was really kind of threatened. And it would be worthwhile checking. He got an enormous amount of resources through the Internet at the end. So isn’t that the answer? I mean, it isn’t for me. But it’s an argument out there. And it should be evaluated.

You mean the answer for a long-shot candidate who had the right issue?

Yeah. At that time in Minnesota, the war issue sort of bubbled up. And he, more than any other antiwar candidate in that time, raised a very substantial amount of money. They had money left over at the end of that campaign, even after [Wellstone’s death, Walter] Mondale got in it. I mean, I haven’t got the dollar figures, but it’s well worth looking at.

This is in his last race?

Last race for the Senate.

So what do you think the possibilities are of a long-shot candidate, who doesn’t have all that money, to use the system the way Jimmy Carter did in ’76 by going to Iowa and building up some momentum, getting some press, and surviving? Is that possible now with the money that’s involved?

Well, there are a number of different issues involved. There were problems in the system which just had Iowa and New Hampshire and a few states; that’s going back to 1960. But there are also some advantages where an outside candidate could get traction. [Eugene] McCarthy in New Hampshire and Gary Hart in Iowa were able to get some traction and able to sort of build over a period of time, rather than having the systems that are all either frontloaded or backended.

On the other hand, are those states really representative of the Democratic Party? I think you can make a case that they are not really representative. So those are good issues for thoughtful people to spend some time on. I mean, I think there are cases to be made.

But how much time is there now for building up momentum when you have the schedule as it is for 2008?

Well, it’s certainly a lot less than we’ve ever had previously. But on the other hand, you have states that are more representative of the Democratic Party there. You are going to have a voice in the nominee. So I think you have arguments that on the one hand, you are going to have so many states and so little money. On the other hand, you are going to have states that are more representative of the Democratic Party. So I think those are good issues to be thought about and debated. But I think the underlying issue of all of this is the money and the funding.

With the leading candidates this time around raising so much money and opting out of the system, do you think that means the end of the system?

Well, it’s very certainly threatened. I mean, the system is not a terribly satisfactory system to start with.

The matching system?

Well, there are some features of it, matching lower dollar, things that are appealing. But if you are looking at the overall aspects of it, I believe that we ought to have public funding. I think candidates ought to be accountable to the people, the people they represent and the people of the country, and shouldn’t be accountable to the financial and special interests. I think that is the fundamental issue involved in public financing in this thing. I ought to be accountable.

I come from a state that has fishing in New Bedford and Gloucester. The fact is, both of those harbors have completely divergent views about fishing. Completely divergent views. Gloucester goes into Canada. And they want their fishermen to go into the broadest kinds of ways into Canada. New Bedford wants to seal off George’s Bank so they can bring in the shrimp. It doesn’t want the Canadian ships in there.

But I ought to have to be accountable to divergent views. I ought to be accountable to my fishermen. And I ought to be accountable to the high-tech people. And I ought to be accountable to the people dealing with biotech industries. I ought to be accountable to them. I’ll [raise money] as a part of the process and the system, but the time that you spend takes away from your effectiveness of being a United States senator.

I have been in the process for 45 years. I still have to go out and raise funds. I become a lesser senator in the two years before my election than I am after elected. And it isn’t that I mind working hard. It’s just that I am not doing what I was elected to do, and what the people expect me to do.

Does money buy access? Is that a myth or is that a fact?

Oh, I think it’s a reality. It’s a reality. You go to a fundraiser, and the people in there, you thank them. I mean you go around the room, and you see a face and a name.

But how often does it occur that somebody comes in and asks you for something specific as a quid pro quo?

No, that doesn’t happen. I mean people will know what I am for. Nurses know that I think they are the backbone of the [medical system], so they do fundraisers for me. Now, I have been supporting nurses since I have been around here. Workers, labor, know that I stand up for them. They give me support, although we’ve gotten them worked up and been on different sides than they have.

If you take recently the immigration bill, Building Trades [Association] is strongly opposed to it. I voted for NAFTA [North American Free Trade Agreement]; they were opposed to it. I was for airline deregulation; the machinists were opposed to it. I mean, I have taken [different positions] over a period of time. I was against the war in Vietnam; they were for it. Although day in and day out, the workers in Massachusetts know that I am on their side. And they know that I am there always for them in terms of increasing the minimum wage, health and safety issues. They know I am always there for them, although they will differ from me on some of these particulars.

So what is going to happen, the labor gives you a chunk of change, and you vote for Davis-Bacon [a law requiring prevailing wage for public projects]. So I have been doing that for 45 years. My brothers did it before me. They know where we are going to come. They were interested. And they support it.

So that’s one type. The other types are the people who are going to put in particulars on the issues and the Finance Committee and the Ways and Means Committee. I don’t try and impugn the integrity, but that’s what those committees do.

Look at this. For example, in the Clinton administration we did a total review on spending. But we didn’t do a total review in terms of tax expenditures. Tax expenditures and spending virtually make up the budget. Politically they were worried that any kind of tax expenditures are sweetheart deals and something would come back. And they would be perceived as voting for a tax increase and therefore frightened to be able to deal with some of those.

Do you think money brings more negative campaigning?

Well, negative campaigning is here, unfortunately. Two nights ago I was just watching the 10 o’clock news. Anderson Cooper came on. And he says: “We have more mail because we have shown too much of O.J. Simpson. And yet every station that has shown stories of O.J., their ratings have gone up through the roof.”

This is what it’s at. This is where it is. You ask anybody that sends mail out for solicitation. I tell them [in my mail that] we passed education reform, $20 billion. We have mental-health parity that we passed, and the FDA Food and Drug Administration] reform. People [say]: “Good work. It’s nice to see you and hear from you. What else is new?”

The mail-order people will say the best way to raise [money] is put [Donald] Rumsfeld with a slash across him, put [Karl] Rove with a slash across him. They’ll put money in the envelope and send it back before they even read it. I mean this is what the mail-order people will tell you. We don’t do that. Except I think the people who run negative ads, there is a certain accountability on them, too.

Do you see any way to reduce costs of campaigns? Is this whole industry growing out of people who run campaigns? When you started out, and your brothers, you had Steve Smith run the campaign.

Yeah. They were all volunteers.

Or like with Dukakis, he had his law partner running the campaign. It was a more personal kind of a thing. Now you have a hired gun.

That’s right. I went to seven Western states with my brothers. I arrived in Phoenix, Arizona. I had a five-page memorandum from my brother and from [speechwriter] Ted Sorensen. And they had been out there speaking a year or two before. I took a taxi to the state headquarters and I asked the chairman, “Where are the delegates?” They said, “Globe, Sholo, Prescott, Flagstaff, Yuma, Nogales, Tucson, and Phoenix.” And I said: “Fine. How many delegates?” And he told me.

So I called and asked the chairman in Globe: “If I come over there tomorrow at noon, will you come out to the airport? Can we have lunch?” [He said,] “OK.” I called Sholo and said: “Can we do it in the afternoon? Prescott, will you have dinner with me?” I set all of those things up. I went out to the airport. I hired a plane. I flew into those places myself. I took my own notes. I came on back, rented my car, went all the way around myself.

Hell, now, unless you have your suite, and your car that picks you up, and the suite, and don’t wait too long — I mean, of course you can’t get the fellow at the state headquarters. He is out playing golf with somebody. I mean, it’s an entirely different kind of process. And, of course, that system sort of worked. That thing sort of worked.

Well, because of the size and the . . .?

Yeah. But still, I think if you were doing that thing today, you would probably do it pretty much the same. But it would cost you a hundred times as much.

Do you think it’s damaging to a campaign that maybe the campaign manager really doesn’t know the candidate? Or the people who do his advertising don’t know the candidate?

Well, the thing is, the American people are crying for authenticity. If the candidate is not going to be authentic, I think that comes through. And I don’t think that they get enormously far. They may get a ways in the beginning. But the American people are pretty perceptive. There are some values. I mean, they are basically fair and take some time to get it. It’s like the war. They were all for the war, now they are against — taking time for them to get it. But they get it eventually. But they basically are fair. The question in these campaigns is whether there is enough time or whether they can catch you. But you can’t be on these all sides.

I can remember when I took my little son, Teddy, [who] recovered from cancer — he was 11 years old — down to Florida. And the Miami Dolphins gave him the ball. And he had just gone up here, and the New England Patriots gave him a ball. So, of course, he had said up here, “New England Patriots is my favorite team.” He arrived down in Florida and said, “What do I say?” I said, “Say the Dolphins are your favorite team.” He said, “Well, I can’t do that, because I just told them that New England [is my favorite].” He didn’t get it. You are trying to make the Dolphins all feel happy.

There is a great guy [Joe Robbie] who was the head of the Dolphins, a good Democrat. Remember the Dolphins moved down there from Minneapolis? He is Lebanese. He supported George McGovern. But he was a good pal, too.

Is that the guy who built the stadium down there?

He built the stadium. And he was an immigrant. Twelve years old, came in and went to South Dakota, and then Minnesota. He made a chunk. And he got the team. And then he went to Miami. He had the Dolphins. He sold it, now 25 years ago. But he was a great guy. And he liked the Kennedys. And you felt comfortable, almost. He would bring Teddy down to practice and stuff. Americans get it. Twelve-year-olds get it.

To bring me kind of up to date now, how do you feel about these groups that are not a part of the campaign, but profess to speak for the campaign or take a piece of the campaign, like this MoveOn group and the ad they ran the other day? If you were running a campaign, would you want to have somebody not under your control?

Well, in the history of the country, we have always had people outside the campaign who have been supportive or have been critical of it. I mean that’s part of the process. And sometimes they can get more and more powerful. I think that’s going to be a part of the American process and the American political system. Now you move on there into organizations. You get into those shadowy ones, the 527s that are getting the money and supporting it and circumventing.

It gets back into the broader issue about public financing. I mean, you sort of are circumventing the law. I have expressed what my views are about the whole range of this. You are going to have groups. Rush Limbaugh is going to be on my case as long as I am around. And [Sean] Hannity is going to be on my case as long as I am around. I mean, what are we going to do about that? Are they OK and MoveOn not OK? So what are you going to do?

We saw the same thing with the Swift Boats with Kerry.

Yeah.

Do you think that was a major reason for him losing the election?

Well, I think he is the best one to respond. I think he should have responded earlier. Well, let me give you an [example]. In Massachusetts, this last campaign, Kerry Healey, [the Republican nominee for governor in 2006], ran an ad against [Democratic Governor] Deval Patrick, of a woman walking down to the car in the parking lot. And they had this voiceover: “Defender of child pornographers. Defender of rapists. Deval Patrick.” You ought to get the exact information rather than from me. But I am giving it to you pretty closely: “People have a right to a defense attorney. But do they have an obligation to elect them governor? Vote Kerry Healey.”

Deval Patrick went up eight points. People were so outraged by that. People were so outraged by that. Now look at what happened [during] the first Bush campaign with the hand coming up, and what has been done in campaigns and negative advertising. But in Massachusetts, on that kind of thing there, they said no way. And I think that finished Kerry Healey off. I think the campaign was all over.

Well, why didn’t it work that way for Kerry with the Swift Boat thing?

Well, because he didn’t respond. And I think they went over the top. I mean, you’ll have to talk to other people. I am not an expert on this. I supported John. And I think he should have responded. I haven’t got anything new to say on that. But I do know what went on in Massachusetts during this election. That was enormously interesting.

But it’s the Supreme Court is recognizing — it’s basically public financing. The rest of this is knicks and knacks. Knicks and knacks.