Countdown

Home > Interviews > Janet H. Brown

Janet H. Brown

Janet H. Brown is the executive director of the Commission on Presidential Debates, a tax-exempt organization that was established in 1987 to sponsor and produce presidential and vice presidential debates during each general-election period. Brown, who previously was a Reagan administration official and press secretary to Republican Senator John C. Danforth, has led the organization since its inception.

John W. Mashek interviewed Brown on April 17, 2007.

Next year the presidential debates could be crucial, could be important — or maybe not quite so important, it depends on who you talk to. Do you think at this juncture there will be three presidential and one vice presidential debates?

I do. I think now the pattern is pretty well set. There is no incumbent running. I think the candidates will understand that the amount of time that three 90-minute debates allow for is the appropriate amount of time to cover the number of issues that need to be discussed at length and quite seriously.

Before a debate, there is always the issue of what has been known as the debate on the debates. Since we are going through several cycles with the commission sponsoring these debates, is it too blue-sky to think that we may be beyond that this time? Because we don’t know who the nominees are, but we are going to know pretty fast, probably February 5. So might we see a more restricted debate on debates this time?

One can always hope. But you know as well as anybody that the debate over debates is largely a function of campaign strategy and tactical considerations that campaign managers and their teams have in mind. They have quite little to do, actually, with the debates themselves, with the soundness of the debate plan that we put forward at least 12 months beforehand. They have a lot to do with trying to gain the competition between campaigns and to try to gain some sense of advantage, at least in the media, as far as who may have the upper hand, the better sense of confidence going into this. That’s really, to our mind, more what they are about than about the soundness of the debate proposal, or, most importantly, what the public deserves to see and hear.

I don’t want to be presumptive or ask you to predict, but it would seem to me that the formats of the last debates [have been] with a single moderator and different candidates standing, the candidates in a town hall setting, et cetera. Is it your expectation that would be [the format] again? Or will that still be mulled over before a decision is made?

We are always trying to learn as we move forward. That’s the reason we have gotten away, over the years, from a panel of questioners. There is always a review. There is always a consideration of new ideas. But I do think there are certain features that work well that make sense to continue. One is the single moderator. The focus of the debates should be on the candidates, not on anyone else on the stage. And I think that having a single moderator is focusing the time and attention on the candidates.

The town-meeting format has been extremely popular with the public. There is this misunderstanding that the town meeting is, in fact, just a prop, that the questions have been preselected, that they don’t belong to the town-meeting participants, that the town-meeting participants, in fact, are preselected. None of those are true. And the public really likes seeing fellow citizens asking these questions.

The seated format, I believe, has been a big success. It gets away from the staid character of the podium format. It has, I believe, encouraged a more relaxed conversation between the candidates. And I hope we can use that again. The single-format model we have been striving for, for a long time now, that I would really love to see, is the candidates talking directly to each other. That has been used now, successfully, in a lot of non-presidential debates: gubernatorial, senatorial. I wish we could get to that model, but obviously unless the candidates are willing to agree, they can’t be forced. 

As a follow-up to that, I tend to agree with you that in a senatorial campaign you learn a lot more. But the stakes are so high in a presidential [campaign]. I would never advise any campaign [to go for that kind of debate]. But being worried about that, unless your candidate was really fast on the trigger, and some are faster than others . . .

There has to be a level of personal comfort. You are right. But I do think we clearly have a terrific track record, in terms of our moderators being people who are extremely able and knowledgeable. I believe those people could conduct a conversation with the candidates talking to each other that would be dignified and comfortable for the candidates, and extremely revealing and helpful for the public.

In other words, the moderator would move things along, but not ask the questions.

Exactly.

As a point of disclosure here, I should say at this point that I was a panelist in 1988 and 1992 with the commission, and in 1984 when the League of Women Voters was running [the debates], in the vice presidential debate. So with that said, I have to say that I thought that a panel was almost disruptive. If chosen or if asked to serve, I did. But it seemed to me, seated there with other journalists, that it almost gave the candidates a cushion to rebound. One panelist may ask a long-winded question, which we would try to agree not to do that. I tried to keep mine under 25 seconds, at the longest. But is that one reason? Or was the selection of the panelist why that became an unpopular medium to do?

It’s totally, from the perspective of staff of the commission — and I think the board would agree with this — a matter of arithmetic. The fewer players on the stage, the more time and attention focuses on the candidates. I think some professional journalists see this as an anti-journalist comment. It’s not. It’s simply a reaffirmation of the importance of focusing on getting the maximum amount of time focused on questions and answers from the candidates, with the moderator really being as subtle as can be.

As you are aware, when the commission took over these debates, it was generally accepted. But naturally, politics being what it is, there were the detractors and the critics. It was because, I would guess, the two parties were in control. And yet it seems to have gone rather smoothly. So I have to ask, have functionaries of either party approached you at any time about questions, about who should be selected to be moderators, and had any influence on that whatsoever?

We have never had any questions, either offered or suggested, any expectations laid on us that should have been passed through to the moderator or to panelists. There has never been an issue about influencing that process. I am very proud of the record the commission has working with our moderators and panelists. And if I didn’t feel as though their independence and judgment were paramount, I wouldn’t be doing this. Because I don’t think you can ask people like you, people like Jim Lehrer, all of the other people who have carried out these responsibilities, to do that and then hem them in. That’s totally unfair.

On that point, and on another personal point, I have had friends criticize me in private, some in public, for playing a role in a debate that was arranged by two political parties. And my response to that was always, “Well, if I was asked to serve and my bosses said I could serve, I would.” And I couldn’t understand criticism from people who went on network programs, for money, criticizing me for being on a debate panel. Now that’s not even a question; I guess that’s a statement. But I have to tell you, it rankled me.

It should rankle you. And the fact is it’s a part of a lot of misunderstandings that are out there about the way these debates are conducted, which rankles me. Sometimes it’s because people don’t ask the questions. But quite often it’s because there is a lot of information about the debates that’s put out by campaigns, who have a whole different agenda in terms of not only what happens in the debates, but then looking back on debate history. They want it to reflect their perspective. Quite often that is not in conformance with the truth.

So much for the softball questions. Corporate sponsors help pay to defray the costs that are there. And I know they are defrayed, in some part, by cities or colleges that hold the debates. And I think colleges would be honored to hold debates. How are the corporate sponsors selected or how do they volunteer to offer their money and name to sponsor the debates?

Let me start by saying another huge misunderstanding is that debate sponsorship is very largely a function of federal law. The Federal Election Commission requires that presidential-debate sponsors either be media organizations or nonprofits. The Commission on Presidential Debates is a nonprofit. We are a 501(c)(3) organization under the Internal Revenue Service code. That means we raise money the exact same way of any other nonprofit, be it a religious organization, educational, whatever. I am sorry this seems to be so extraordinarily controversial, but I am not sure how else we are meant to raise the funds to do this. So we do, in fact, go to foundations, to corporations, to individuals, to the sites, to raise the money to make this possible. That is very largely not understood by the public.

Well, say the debate down at the University of Richmond. To hold that debate, what’s a ballpark figure of what that costs in terms of getting the people there, et cetera? The campaigns have to get themselves there? But what would it cost? Just a couple hundred thousand maybe?

Well, no. It’s about $500,000 that debate cost in 1992. And anyone who is familiar with television will express disbelief that we can do this for the amount of money that we do. So I would invite critics to go and check the cost of producing 30 minutes of commercial television on any one of the networks and hold it up against what our budget is. We are responsible for the entire television production. And that is also not understood. And that is a business that requires a lot of equipment and a lot of personnel.

To repeat a previous question, have any of those foundations, corporations, individuals, at any time during the debates come to you and say, “Since we are helping pay for this, I want such and such a question asked of such and such candidate?”

Not once.

And if they did?

They would be respectfully told that that is not their right.

Critics, like in the past, Ralph Nader, some journalists — it’s hard to decipher whether their main objection is. One, that the parties control the debates. Two, corporations contribute. Or, being cynical, that they either as a candidate weren’t in the debates or as a journalist weren’t a moderator. Now, that is said not in jest. So what’s the answer to that?

Because, I daresay, and I heard this just last night from a prominent politician, that he said in a private conversation, “I am almost sure there is going to be an independent candidate.” And I said, “I don’t think an independent candidate can get 15 percent in the polls to qualify as a participant.” Will the commission likely hold to that 15 percent? Or are those standards being looked at?

We review the candidate selection criteria in between every cycle. They are studied. They are reevaluated. The board makes the decision whether to reissue them. That is a matter we take with utmost seriousness. And, as you know, in 1992 Mr. [Ross] Perot was included in the debates because he did meet the commission’s criteria.

And he, in fact, got 19 percent of the vote in the election.

He did. But what people forget is he got no electoral votes. 

Well, neither did John Anderson in 1980. And if I might go back in the history of all this, in 1980 President [Jimmy] Carter refused to debate when Anderson was in it, and Ronald Reagan, because he said, “There are going to be two Republicans, in effect, against me.” He may have had other reasons. And then Perot. But it will be interesting to see if there is an independent candidate this time, from either party, who suddenly decides, “Well, there is dissatisfaction with the nominees.” And there is going to be such a long period between February 5, the conventions, and then the debates, and then the election, that it’s going to give so much time for a candidate to think, “I can go national.”

It remains to be seen what’s going to happen. But we take this issue very seriously. We also think people should understand that in any given year there are upwards of 160 people who have filed with the Federal Election Commission as presidential candidates. Many of them believe, quite sincerely, that if they were included in a debate they would get the kind of support they need to have a realistic chance of winning this election. The question is how to balance an evaluation of those candidates against the public’s desire, in the last five to six weeks of the campaign, to see and hear from the individuals who have a realistic chance of being elected.

The co-chairs now are Paul Kirk, a Democrat, and Frank Fahrenkopf, a Republican. And both of them have the added credentials of being former national chairs. Is it likely that they will stay on? Or do I understand that Paul Kirk may decide this is going to be his last one? 

That’s something that I can’t comment on. And all I am grateful for is that they provided the steady leadership they have for 20 years now. Obviously, creating new organizations is hard. And there has to be a commitment by the leadership to weather all of the storms that come along with it. Paul and Frank have worked together without disagreement to the benefit of this organization in terms of what it does and what it stands for. And I think their long-term commitment to that has been invaluable to the strength of the CPD right now. So I am really grateful that they are together right now. And they have been for 20 years. That’s been a huge blessing for the staff and the crew.

Are you going to be fully funded for this next round of debates? Or is it way too early to start the financial backing for the debates next year?

No. We have started it. And it’s hard work. But I am confident that we will have the support we need to do the job right.

And how about locations of the debates? I think there are a lot of cities and colleges, and just as an opinion, I think those that are held on college campuses are great.

The board decided 20 years ago that, to the extent that we could do these on campuses, it was very consistent with the educational purpose of debates. And they have been just a wonderful way to involve young people in these historic events, put them to work, have them see the event up close and personal. A lot of campaigns are now pretty well insulated from regular communities. And this has been a big success. As you can see, there are 19 proposals sitting on this table.

And finally, you are certainly a veteran of these wars. And you have thick skin. Are you prepared for the criticism you are probably going to get from some quarters next year as the debates roll on?

It comes every time. And what I try to remind people of is that we do not corner the wisdom on debates. And we welcome people’s comments and their suggestions. And we try to learn from them.