Countdown

Home > Interviews > Gerald Rafshoon

Gerald Rafshoon

Gerald Rafshoon is a co-founder of Unity08, a 527 nonprofit organization that’s working to create an alternate 2008 presidential ticket “headed by a woman and/or man from each major party or by an independent who presents a Unity Team from both parties.” Rafshoon was the White House communications director in the Carter administration and is an Emmy Award–winning producer of television movies.

John W. Mashek interviewed Rafshoon on June 26, 2007.

Is public financing, as you knew it in 1976, dead now?

Well, it’s not dead, but it is constantly being assaulted. And it’s being mauled. And it’s being mugged. And it’s being raped. But outside of that, the body is still there.

And this is mainly Supreme Court decisions or congressional inaction?

Well, it’s Supreme Court decisions, but also you come to the candidates who feel that they have to spend every penny that they can get their hands on in order to get the nomination and they eschew public financing, which we are seeing happening now. We have a situation now that the leading candidates in both parties are not taking public financing for the battle for the nomination so that they can exceed the limits that are set up, and to give an all-out effort to win the nomination.

You have on one side Hillary Clinton, who is leading in the Democratic nomination process. And she is not going to take any public financing so she can spend God knows how many dollars. And then over on the Republican side, you have John McCain, the father of McCain-Feingold. He is also doing that. He wishes he hadn’t, because he’s not raising the kind of money he thought he would. So you have the woman who presided over the Lincoln Bedroom fundraising, you have the father of McCain-Feingold, letting it go. So it becomes now an arms race. And the other candidates, if they go with it, they are not going to get any kind of money. And the leading ones don’t care. They want to just spend all they can. In 1976, Doug Bailey and I — it was the first year of public financing — he didn’t have the primaries in [Gerald] Ford’s . . .

Against [Ronald] Reagan.

But we did have a big primary battle, as you well know. And we were so happy to get the public financing. We wouldn’t have made it as far as we did without the matching funds in the primaries. And we raised enough money to do it. And we stayed within the limits. And then, in the general election, Doug and I faced each other. We took the money from the federal government. We each spent about $30 million. We spent $21 million on advertising. We each did that. We never saw anything called soft money, the 527s. We got no money from the two parties. And we had a pretty good television campaign on a national level and local, as needed. And one of us won, and one of us almost won.

And it was a relatively civil race where my idea of negative was to say Ford had vetoed the bills for the poor and was insensitive to the working man, which is true, because the Republicans do. And Doug’s idea of negative was to say Carter was a one-term governor from Georgia who didn’t know his way around Washington, which was true. And that’s it.

There were no bad feelings, because they were good friends before.

They [became] good friends. And Doug and I have become good friends. Fast-forward to 2004, in the general election between [John] Kerry and [George W.] Bush, just general election, between what their campaigns spent, what 527s spent, what the two parties spent, it came to $2.2 billion. And I defy you to tell me a memorable television spot.

They were all negative.

The only one you are going to remember is Swift Boat. And that was by outsiders who didn’t spend that kind of money. But it was repeated over and over again on the news. So not only has the spirit and the letter of campaign-finance [reform] been violated, but also the money that is spent, so much of it is wasted. You don’t see political consultants talking about campaign-finance reform.

Even in today’s dollars, and accounting for inflation, that $30 million would be a pittance.

It would be $78 million. And frankly, if they had done that, we probably would have the same result right now, because you don’t have to spend that kind of money. You get to the point where there is overkill. And people tune out. I think they will tune out television advertising. That’s why the Internet is so important now.

All the political sages were saying at the start of the year, “Well, to even play in the game, it’s going to take $50 million.” Well, now they are saying $100 million, and that figure is climbing. I think four of the six are certain to reach that. [John] Edwards, and as you mentioned, John McCain is having a little trouble these days, even though he was one of the architects of McCain-Feingold.

Well, a lot of people who see these huge amounts of money being mentioned, even though a lot of money is being spent on advertising for everything from deodorants to the pharmaceutical companies, as putting the presidency up for sale. And if that be the notion, then it is understandable that we are having these early debates. And I question whether the audience is any bigger than political junkies like myself.

It isn’t. The audience for the debates that we are having now is not great. However, the junkies like yourself and the people who are covering it are watching it. And therefore they start setting the conventional wisdom, they start saying who is winning and who is losing. People watch the Hardball debate with the guy at the Philadelphia paper. He doesn’t have to go to it, he can just watch it on television. And he makes conclusions. So that has somewhat of a ripple effect.

My guess is that people will not really start focusing — well, I say that. But right now they are probably paying more attention than they had back when we had our campaign. You can’t fly under the radar anymore. As you know, nobody even heard of Jimmy Carter until late 1975. And by that time, we had been running around the country for three years. We had been making mistakes away from the glare. The press wasn’t focusing on us. And by the time the [R.W.] “Johnny” Apple story came out in Iowa in October of ’75, which was based on the fact that we won the straw poll.

Well, [Jack] Germond and Apple, parenthetically, had an argument before Johnny died as to who discovered Jimmy Carter. I think both of them did.

But the point is the discovery wasn’t until almost . . .

Mid-’75.

Almost inevitable then. And you can’t do that anymore. There is no such thing as an unknown governor out there who says he might run for president and being able to run around. They will swoop down to the statehouse with a . . .

You mentioned the matching funds. We have interviewed Frank Moore and Bert Lance already. And they said, “Boy, when those matching funds came in, ‘Yippee, people are going to get paid.’” So it must have been totally different. I mean, when you were handling the communications, you had to very carefully plan a budget.

We were broke. We budgeted and re-budgeted and unbudgeted every week, every day. But I laid out money, my own. Thank goodness we won the nomination, or I would be working in the peanut fields now, still. I actually went $600,000 in debt. Because we gave credit, which you are not supposed to do. I was not a political consultant. I happened to have an advertising agency. My friend was running.

But the point is that you knew you were going to have matching funds. But remember, there was a hiatus where the matching funds were suspended, because there was a suit against campaign finance. A lot of fat cats were saying, “Hey, you are cutting us out.”

Governor Carter was known to keep his thumb on a lot of things, even in the general [election] when you did have more money and didn’t have to worry about going into debt. Did he keep a pretty close eye on what was being spent on advertising?

He did, especially when he was told that he had to put some of his own money in there, so he kept a close eye on it. But Jimmy Carter never saw any of his television spots until the campaign was over. He didn’t micromanage. He knew the themes we were talking about. But we had the suspension of matching funds. But then we were able to raise money, because we had this receivable. We were supposed to receive it. Had that not come through, we would never have made it.

During the Carter-Ford debates in San Francisco, when Ford disengaged Poland, I believe it was, from behind the Iron Curtain, I am sure you were in the audience or you were watching.

Backstage.

Did you sense right away that he had made a big mistake?

Sure. We saw that as a soundbite. We saw that would be the news out of there. And he made a mistake. But remember, the debate was on foreign policy. And here you had this governor from Georgia who has no foreign-policy experience.

This was supposed to be Ford’s strong suit. And it was Max Frankel, wasn’t it?

He gave him a chance. I think one of the things that had happened was they were trying to paint Jimmy Carter as being wishy-washy and having two ways. And they told Ford: “Whatever you do, be consistent. Don’t ever admit failure.” And remember who the chief of staff was.

Dick Cheney. And boy, he was the one who — because I came with the Carter campaign, left with the Ford campaign — it took several news cycles before Cheney told Ford, “You have to recant that statement.”

Yeah. And he was seeing a little déjà vu here, because he won’t let [George W.] Bush recant. But also it’s bad politics. He gives bad advice. It’s hurting him. And, you know, he’s supposed to be so political, which makes you think he’s crazy. And my guess is back then, actually, they blew the election. Look how close they came. I have been thinking about it. Do you remember when they dumped [Nelson] Rockefeller?

Well, [Donald] Rumsfeld was behind that, mainly.

Well, Rumsfeld and Cheney.

It was deadly to them.

All right. It was 1975. I was in Atlanta. It was done when the Southern Republican chairmen were having their meeting in Atlanta. So they dump Rockefeller, because they are afraid they’ll lose the Southern [states].

Which they did anyway, just about.

They didn’t realize that they were going to be up against the first southerner in the country in 130 years to run for president. There was no way they were going to beat him. Had they not taken that advice, left Rockefeller on the ticket, they might have won New York, because we barely won New York. If they had won New York . . .

It was over.

Yeah.

Well, also, if you remember, in his memoirs and in interviews, including with me, Ford, up until the time of his death, really hurt because of that decision. And he never blamed Rumsfeld, but he blamed himself. He said he never should have dumped Rockefeller, and particularly in the way that he did. It was pretty unmerciful.

Well, let’s move forward now to Unity08. I think you wouldn’t mind being called a moderate Democrat. And Bailey certainly was a moderate Republican and probably still is.

That’s why I got out of the business.

And he and John Deardorff had a firm [Bailey-Deardorff] that certainly was pretty strong in this town.

It was the best.

Can Unity08 buck the two-party tradition and the two-party structure in this country, which almost, in many states, eliminates the chances of a third party even getting on a ballot?

The first part of your question is yes. The second part of your question is yes, we can. The first part of the question, all I know, I mean, I know a lot of things, but let’s be clear what the American people are telling us in polls. We took a poll, and over 80 percent of the people said they thought they would like to have more than the choice of the two parties. And they would give a good look to a third party. And when we tried the idea of it being a combination, trying to stop the polarization of this country of a Democrat and a Republican, a Republican and a Democrat, or an independent and one of the parties, they said that’s something they would love to see. Whether they are going to vote that way, we don’t know. But there is a trend now.

Look at the fact that 40 percent of the people consider themselves independents now. Whether they are registered independents — in some states you don’t have to register by party — or they even registered in a party but they consider themselves independents. When you look at the fact that the Republican administration is down to 26 percent favorable, and the Democratic Congress is down to 23 percent favorable, I think we have a real shot to do this.

As far as ballot access, we are in the midst now of waging campaigns, raising the money, and doing the research to get on all 50 state ballots. And we have done expensive and extensive research with some of the best lawyers from Steptoe & Johnson. And we find that 37 states are easy. Of the remaining 14, all but four can be accomplished up to the time that we have our online convention in June 2008. Of the other four, we can do it right after we have a ticket name, and only one of them is a big state, which is Illinois. And it’s going to take some legal work. But the work of Ross Perot and even [Ralph] Nader and John Anderson and others, in various states where they had a chance and have already done some litigation, has paved the way for us.

Also, we are starting a year in advance, before we have candidates. And the other thing is that we are making a drive; Unity08 is based on a moderate and centrist constituency. So we are not talking about having a red-state, blue-state strategy. We are going to have a 50-state strategy. And in states like New York, where a lot of people consider themselves independents, and California, where the governor is really an independent, we have a real shot with masses of people. If we get 38 percent in a three-way race, we will have at least 270 electoral votes. Previous third-party runs were based around one personality or one extreme issue: George Wallace on race. Strom Thurmond on race. Ralph Nader on the left — both [Al] Gore and Kerry weren’t left enough for his liberal agenda. We are talking about centrists.

You didn’t mention Perot.

Well, and then Perot.

Who at one time was almost tied for the lead in the polls.

He was tied in some polls. And he was ahead in two polls in July, just before he heard that the aliens were coming to disrupt his daughter’s wedding. And he had 39 percent in one poll and winning the electoral votes. Then he gets out and comes back in.

Still got 19 percent.

And gets 20 million votes. And with the running mate a good man was marginalized, [vice presidential candidate] Admiral [James] Stockdale . . .

Yeah, who was totally out of it.

We are talking about two major candidates possibly doing this. So I think we have a real shot.

Well, you did recite — just to be the devil’s advocate — the playing field being pretty much strewn with third-party candidates that didn’t carry a single electoral vote.

But they were not appealing to a broad electorate. And it wasn’t as crucial as now. I will tell you, probably the most critical time in the history of our country was 1860, and a third-party candidate won. And he was Abraham Lincoln. The end of the Whig Party. So we come in first, and whoever comes in third, that will be the end of their party.

If next February 5, we’ll almost certainly know who the nominees are . . .

We sure will.

Because of the megaprimary day. And your convention is in June, that’s going to be totally on the Internet. You are not going to gather in any city.

No, we won’t. The convention won’t gather in any city. But there will be meet-ups, probably, during that time for people to enjoy the camaraderie of fellow rebels.

Is this going to be $100 to play in the game?

Nothing to play in the game. All you have to do is register, be a registered voter, and be online. It costs you nothing. We would think that after we pick this bipartisan ticket, after we have gone through several ballots — which will be a novel thing, because you have to get 50 percent plus 1 — the last thing is to say: “OK, we have picked our ticket. Next week we will be on national television to address.” And we will be in the debates, because we will certainly have at least 15 percent. Before you sign off, take out your credit card and pledge or give us up to $100. If we have 10 million people online, and I think we can — Roger Craver, one of partners, already tested what our appeal is, and we are looking at 20 percent — if 20 percent of those people give an average of $100, we’ll have $200 million, which is enough for a general election.

You are shooting for 10 million? Doug [Bailey] said, as a plateau, that you would like to have 10 million. Is that a low figure? Or do you figure you can go higher?

That’s an average figure. I think five million would be fine. And I think it could escalate to 20 million. Who knows?

Again, to be the devil’s advocate, what happens if — and you can name them — the Democrats nominate ‘X’, the Republicans ‘Y’, on February 5. What if you are wrong, though, and the public says, “Well, we’re content with the choices,” particularly on the Democratic side as opposed to, obviously, there has been a lot of unrest on the Republican side. What makes you so sure, though?

What makes us so sure? It always happens that after the two parties have picked their candidates early, the buyer’s remorse sets in. It’s happened every time. You have some polarizing figures that will probably get the nomination. So by June, before they have had their convention, and the two sides have their candidates, they have nothing to do. How do they spend their time? They are going to spend their time doing what they have been doing — that is, attacking the other side. And the public is getting more and more tired of the blame game. I would almost bet you that Hillary Clinton is going to be the nominee. The negatives are very high. You are going to have a lot of [Barack] Obama people who are going to feel they wanted a change agent. That’s why they were for Obama. And they didn’t get it.

And Edwards is a southerner.

But they are certainly not going to go for the Republican Party. And on the Republican side, it looks like the leading candidates are all supporting Bush. They are all supporting the war so far. And one of them is going to get the nomination. And you are going to have a lot of moderate Republicans who are going to be unhappy. They are certainly not going to come over and vote for Hillary.

Their number isn’t very large, by the fact you just mentioned, that all of the leading candidates are still supporting the war.

They are playing to the base to get the nomination with the idea that they can move . . .

Come back to the center.

Yeah. I mean, look what’s happened to John McCain. It’s embarrassing.

Am I wrong to assume, right now anyway, that just by the way the landscape looks, that Michael Bloomberg and Chuck Hagel look almost like they would fit beautifully into Unity08? And Hagel has even hinted at the fact that he is pretty much not going to run, I don’t think. But he’s talked about, openly, kind of refreshing in that way, that he has talked to Bloomberg. And Bloomberg has stripped himself of his Republican identity, being pretty much a liberal Democrat. And he’s got oodles of money. So why shouldn’t I say I think the Rafshoon-Bailey ticket is already almost fixed.

Don’t come down, senator! Stay up there. This guy’s suspicious. Stay up there in the attic!

Hi, Chuck! But seriously, I mean, those two certainly fit.

Well, we hope that they will participate. It’s not up to us, we are not picking. It’s up to the people who vote on the Internet. Unity08 is very susceptible to a draft movement. If people out there want to convince these guys that they ought to run together, they might be drafting them. But there are other candidates, too.

You did make a very good point that from February 5 to the conventions in Minneapolis and Denver, you have to keep the interest in people. And it’s almost certain to be dominated by, I love this phrase, “identifying the opponent,” which means a ton of negative advertising. And if you do have polarizing figures, and you know this much better than I, of course, that with independent sources now with the imprimatur of the Supreme Court, just a ton of money is going to be spent to find every flaw in Senator Clinton, in Obama.

On the other side, now you are hearing people say, which I find ludicrous, that the way to keep interest is for those who are almost certain to be nominated to say who is going to be in their Cabinet. Well, my feeling would be, that just opens up more ammunition, more than discussion. If Hillary says ‘X’ is going to be my secretary of state, Republicans will be out with guns.

Yeah. I think actually I would not mind. If we have an independent and, say, a member of the Republican Party as his running mate, let’s say a Bloomberg-Hagel, it might be that they would identify who their secretary of state is. Hopefully, he’d pick like a Democrat if he had a Republican.

Well, Bush indicated he was going to ask Colin Powell before the election and it helped. And then Powell was immediately put in the closet.

Of course. But, for example, what if Bloomberg-Hagel said they were going to have Sam Nunn as secretary of state? That wouldn’t hurt. That would happen. But more than that, they will cease the negative advertising during that period and the negative bouncing ball going back and forth. Just plain campaigning to stay relevant and promising and voting back in the Senate some way, like she did with the war, is going to turn people off more, if we are going to be looking for something fresh, something new.

Every indication is that Nader is going to probably get in, even though he has barely scratched. But he did in the last one. But he certainly, by every reckoning, with 92,000 votes in Florida, beat Al Gore. Now if Nader gets in and Unity08 has a ticket, and we have the two major parties, isn’t there a danger we’re Balkanizing the American political system? Or maybe you need it. Do you think it needs it?

Oh, I think it needs a jolt. I don’t think we’re Balkanizing. I can’t see Nader being a factor. In fact, Nader has nothing to say if Unity08 has a centrist ticket. I think his message for change is so minimal.

Is Unity08.com already in high gear? And we are talking about the money primary now.

We are raising money.

Can that turn off people who are a little bit aghast at how much money is being raised?

We are not raising that kind of money. We don’t need that kind of money. We are a party; we are not having a primary. We need $10 million, maybe $12 million, up to the convention. And that is to do mostly ballot access and then run the convention. It’s going to have to get one of the big online companies to keep it from crashing and all that stuff. But we are raising money on small donations. And also we are like a PAC [political action committee]. We are allowed to raise $5,000 contributions, no corporate money, to get established. But we are not doing that kind of fundraising.

Has President Carter spoken to you at all about [Unity08]?

I told him about it. And, of course, he’s a Democrat. And he’s a Democratic former president. He’s certainly not going to bolt the party. But I think he sees what we’re doing. He has not blessed us. But he certainly hasn’t said, “Don’t do it.” Hamilton Jordan is one of our people.

He was in the Perot campaign.

Yeah. But he’s also one of the founders of Unity08.

I know with how your mind works, I’ll bet you have already got some ads in mind when this thing gets under way. This is back, really, to the start, I guess. Can you really defy the two-party system in this country, when the two parties are almost driven sometimes to make sure that somebody doesn’t get onto the field?

Well, I told you how we are doing the ballot access. We can do that. And we won’t have negative advertising against the parties. They handle it well enough for us.

Do you think that might even stir a little sympathy?

Oh, let me tell you. If we need to raise money, all we have to do is be attacked by them. Why are they attacking us? Why attack your right to make a choice?