Countdown

Home > Interviews > Frank Mankiewicz

Frank Mankiewicz

Frank Mankiewicz is a vice chairman of Hill & Knowlton, a public relations firm, in Washington, D.C. Before that he was Robert F. Kennedy’s press secretary, the director of George McGovern’s 1972 presidential campaign, and the president of National Public Radio.

John W. Mashek interviewed Mankiewicz on July 31, 2007.

I’ll start with a question about right now and then go back. Is public financing dead, in your opinion, for the presidential campaigns?

Well, I think it has to be [alive]. I mean, it’s the only thing that could reform what we’ve got, which is these guys going out with the tin cup six hours a day and then yielding, of course, to the people who put in the most money. Whether we’ll ever have enough money to pay for public campaigning is another question. But in principle, I think it’s the way to go. Either public financing or free television.

Of course, people like Paul Taylor tried to valiantly get the networks and their local affiliates to give candidates practically free time, or certainly a reduced rate. And I think Paul would admit, the effort got almost nowhere.

That’s right.

It’s just to finance those expensive ads. Only the people with the big wallets are the ones that can afford them.

That’s true. It’s increasingly true.

In ’68, when Bob Kennedy was running, there were some restraints, but really not that many. Kennedy was then, even with his name, running against the establishment; first it was Lyndon [Johnson] and then with [Hubert] Humphrey. Was his money raised largely by direct mail or by appeals that he or others made? How was that done?

My feeling is [that] it was not done systematically at all. And I never saw any mail or any common appeal. I think it was mostly raised by Steve Smith. I have many recollections of Steve calling people and saying, “We think you ought to make a major contribution here.” And then he would listen. And then he would say what I always thought were the coldest words in politics: “Well, OK, we’ll remember that.”

Now I assume that was either to a no answer or to a maybe answer.

Oh, I think the negative.

Was there, before RFK’s tragic death, any point where the campaign was running on a thread, or were you able to pay people? I guess volunteers were your main organ of support.

Really, the staff was fairly small. It was mostly a Senate staff, which got paid out of the Senate. I don’t recall whether I had a raise at all in that; I don’t think anybody else did. But I was paid, at least in part, by something 99 Park. It was Steve’s address.

Well, now let’s move forward to ’72, to the Nixon campaign. And we have interviewed Senator McGovern on the campaign. And, of course, you were prominent, I think, on [Richard] Nixon’s enemies list, among others.

Yeah.

Do you recall that it was somewhere in the neighborhood of eight to one, maybe higher, that you were outspent by the Committee for the Re-Election of the President?

Oh, easy. Easy. We collected, I don’t know, the figure is down somewhere. [McGovern fundraiser] Henry Kimmelman, of course, knows it to the decimal point. My feeling is it was $38 million total, for the primary and the general election. And the Nixon people were spending $250 [million]. Plus they had the presidency.

I remember being with Senator McGovern as a reporter, and I think you were there, in Philadelphia, seeing signs [that said] “Gays for McGovern” or “Queers for McGovern” or something to that effect. Of course, it turned out that they were paid by the Nixon campaign.

Yeah, it’s interesting. You remember Leon Jaworski?

I do.

He is dead now, I think, but he wrote a book, mostly about the campaign. I spent a lot of time talking to him. He told me, for instance, that the whole lobby full of hippie demonstrators against McGovern in Miami were all paid by [Nixon operative] Chuck Colson. He said almost every event like that, you could count on was paid by Nixon.

That campaign, of course, led to public financing in ’76, which both President [Gerald] Ford and Governor [Jimmy] Carter followed, both in the primary and in the general.

They took the public money?

Correct. I don’t know what the percentage is, but taxpayers, by growing numbers, check the “no” column because they figure, my taxes are going to go up four dollars, two for me and two for my wife. And that’s not true, but I guess that the Treasury — I haven’t checked it lately — is running out of cash big time.

Oh, yeah. I don’t think they have much money for public financing if both candidates take it.

I know you are not directly involved in a campaign now, but you certainly have a basis throughout history. Would you guess that direct mail is so expensive and so shopworn now that it is losing its luster as a way to raise money?

I am not convinced, only because I haven’t seen enough evidence. Clearly, it’s not the lightning rod that it was in ’72. We raised almost all of that money by direct mail, and in $10s and $20s. And [McGovern finance director] Morris Dees wrote some great letters. But I suppose it’s lost some of its luster. I am not sure how much.

Well, we both know Richard Viguerie is a master at sitting down to write letters that can scare the wits out of right-wingers. And it’s very expensive. But it apparently is quite successful.

I think it’s still quite successful if the message can be strong and frightening enough. I am told the Republicans are having a lot of success with a letter that says, “I can tell you in two words the terrible future.” The two words are, of course, “Hillary Clinton.”

And of course, the Internet, now, if you make a contribution to particularly any of the six top candidates for president in this cycle, you are going to be on their list forever.

Absolutely.

And it’s relatively easy and painless until you get your Visa or your MasterCard bill. As we both know, Senator [Barack] Obama has turned this into almost a new science. People are contributing in droves.

You ought to note, with respect to Obama, that he counts as a contributor anybody who buys a hat, a button, or a T-shirt.

So it’s a little lopsided.

It’s a little lopsided.

What do you think about a candidate like John McCain, who certainly has a proud military past and started out this cycle as the leading candidate, yet now looks like he may be having to save everything and get public financing so he can even run in Iowa or New Hampshire.

Boy, I think the McCain collapse, if that’s what it is, is worth studying. Because it’s an example, I think, of a candidate losing strength because of his ideas, because of his campaign positions. I mean, most guys lose because they are found with a lady they shouldn’t be with — or worse, can’t be with. Or it turns out they had a $200 haircut. Or they invested in Enron.

But here is McCain, who is the leading candidate, who had plenty of money. And he’s clearly going to go down because of his position on the war and immigration. It hasn’t happened in some time, [where] a candidate loses because of an issue.

You are familiar with various strategies built around the Iowa and New Hampshire results, and they’re inordinately important fixtures in this cycle. Are Iowa and New Hampshire, because of the huge primary in February, more important or less important now?

I think probably both. I think they are more important on they day they’re decided. I think that will quickly dwindle if somebody comes along and picks up February 5. Because then you have New York and California and God knows what else.

Texas, Pennsylvania, I mean all of the big states are in the February 5 super-duper Tuesday, I guess we can call it.

If John Edwards wins New Hampshire, and maybe Edwards and Hillary are neck-and-neck in Iowa, then everybody says, “Gee, great for Edwards.” Then Hillary comes along, and then in New York, Pennsylvania, Texas, California, et cetera.

And knocks him out right away.

Levels him five to one. Suddenly Iowa and New Hampshire don’t seem so important.

And on the Republican side, [Mitt] Romney is doing very well in Iowa and New Hampshire. And yet, nationally, he is way back of [Rudy] Giuliani. And Fred Thompson.

It’s amazing, it really is. Because it seems as though the public cares less and less about the issues in the campaign, except when somebody comes along like McCain, who is starkly different than the party’s base. And then they pay attention.

Just a couple of more questions about campaign financing. If, in fact, public financing is either dead or comatose, does this mean that in this cycle and in the next, even though legally people are restricted to the $2,300 per primary and then the general, that we may wake up some morning in the next few years and find out that there have been a lot of people going around that?

I am sure that’s going to be true. Also, as long as that decision, [Buckley] v. Valeo, that’s on the books, so a candidate can spend all of his own money, that’s going to be fairly worthless. I mean you have Romney in there. He’s got millions. McCain has a lot of money. I assume, by now, Fred Thompson must have a whole lot of money. John Edwards is certainly well-fixed. So you will have a lot of that to get around. In addition, it just seems to me inconceivable that a law passed by a majority of the House and the Senate could interfere with fundraising in any significant way.

When we get into the presidential race and we know who the two candidates are, do you think the debates this time could be even more important? Or are they probably about the same as they always have been?

I am just guessing wildly, but the way I see this going, they are going to be much more important.

Particularly, if it’s Hillary, say, that people will be taking the measure of her.

Oh, yeah. As a matter of fact, I think her whole shtick so far has been to convince the TV audience that she is a serious person who could run the country. And she has succeeded in that.