Countdown

Home > Interviews > Larry Agran

Larry Agran

Larry Agran, a Democrat, is a member of the city council of Irvine, California, and its mayor pro tem. He previously served several terms as its mayor. Agran was a candidate for the 1992 Democratic presidential nomination.
Josh Israel interviewed Agran on July 3, 2007.

You first served on the Irvine City Council in 1978, is that right?

Yes.

And when did you first become mayor?

Well, we originally had a system where the council elected the mayor. I first became mayor in 1982. I served as mayor until 1984. Then since, I was reelected to the council in ’82 and again in ’86. In 1986 I became a council-elected mayor, again serving for two years, from ’86 to ’88. And then we went to a system of directly elected mayor. I was the city’s first directly elected mayor in 1988. That was for a two-year term.

And then you served a couple of more terms?

Well, I served until 1990. I was defeated for reelection as mayor in 1990. And then I came back and ran for the city council in 1998. And we had a major battle here over the reuse of a military base and questioned whether it would be an airport or a great metropolitan park. And I was on the park side.

I got elected to the council in 1998 in mid-term, since council terms are for four years. I ran for mayor in 2000 and was elected and ran for reelection as mayor in 2002. I was reelected. Under our charter, you cannot succeed yourself more than once for the same office without either stepping down or running for another office. So in 2004, I ran for a four-year term on the city council. And I am currently in the middle of that.

What made you decide to run for president in ’92?

Well, it was pretty obvious to me that with the Cold War coming to an end, there was a tremendous opportunity to redirect national resources away from Cold War military spending and to capitalize on the so-called peace dividend and investing $100 billion a year or more in uplifting conditions in our cities and towns across the country in terms of transportation, education, urban renewal, and all manner of projects that would have tremendously improved the country had we taken that course in the 1990s.

I looked at the FEC [Federal Election Commission] reports for your campaign in ’92. And it looks like your total receipts were about $653,000.

I was trying to think about that this morning. And my recollection was on the order of $700,000.

And of that, about $335,000 came in the form of contributions from individuals. Was the rest matching funds?

Yes.

So you accepted the matching-fund system?

Yes. In fact, I am sure you are going to get to this one way or another, but it’s one of the tragedies of current American political life that the presidential matching fund has been pretty much eviscerated by reliance on private dirty money.

I actually was going to ask that. Yesterday, with John McCain’s campaign apparently having some struggles to raise the money, they announced that he will now accept matching funds for the primary.

Very interesting. I didn’t realize you could kind of go back and forth like that.

Well, I guess he may not have raised enough money yet that he would have exceeded the caps. But I think if he were doing better, he probably wouldn’t be able to go back.

Right. What is the maximum amount for primaries now, assuming you were . . . ?

I am not 100 percent sure. It seems to keep changing depending on who you ask. But there may be hope for the system yet. I don’t know.

Well, I would hope so. I just think this is nuts, what is going on now.

So to raise that money for a presidential campaign, of the nature of yours, how did you go about it?

It was very difficult. I mean, there were some states where I had friends and associates. Of course, I was not a well-known candidate. I got a little bit of exposure on The MacNeil-Lehrer NewsHour and a few other pretty good hits along the way. But for the most part, I was kept out of the significant nationally televised debates.

I did participate in a number of regionally televised debates and forums. And in those forums, you could, in effect, make a pitch for some funds, small donations. And that was an important part of it. I had friends and supporters in a number of states raising $5,000 in contributions of, it was then and I would assume it still is, $250 or $200 or less. Is it $200?

It’s $250 if it’s for the matching-fund qualification.

I think you are right. It took 20 donors of $250, which sounds pretty easy. In those days it was much more difficult. I remember talking with Paul Tsongas about it. He said that he had to go back to a number of states two and three times to get over the $5,000 threshold in 20 states. But I did that. And I kind of hooked up with other progressive people who would be willing to hold little house parties and bring me to them. And then we would raise a few thousand dollars. And then I would have to come back again. And one way or another, we got over the top. It took a long time, particularly when I was closed out of the significant national debates. It’s very difficult to raise money if you are not seen on TV.

What do you think it would have taken to have been more of a competitive player?

I simply would have had to have been in some of those early televised debates. I mean, I look at Senator Mike Gravel and, of course, [Dennis] Kucinich is a member of Congress, these guys who are obviously going nowhere with these debates in the race. But the exposure, after all, in a country of 300 million people, you don’t have to have a heck of a lot of people to qualify for federal matching funds.

My goal was not to win the nomination, but to be what I refer to as a 5 percent or 10 percent factor in the Democratic Party. The real battle, as I saw it in 1992, was whether the Democratic Party was going to turn away from Cold War military budgets and be really dedicated to investing a potential peace dividend in what would be an American renewal program, what I call the new American security. Stronger cities, stronger towns, well-educated kids, good transportation systems, good public safety, put all of that in place across the country, which is something we could have done in the 1990s. And the Democratic Party really could have led the way.

And my thought was, there was probably a 5 percent to 10 percent constituency for that that could, in turn, improve the policies of the Democratic Party and the party’s ultimate nominee. And unlike other candidates who are running, who are asked, “Well, if you don’t become president of the United States, would you take a position in the Cabinet of the new administration?” And I said, “Absolutely.” Absolutely, I would love to have been secretary of health and human services or houing and urban development or a whole host of positions that were important to the future of the country, particularly in the ’90s when we had a chance to, I think, do so much more than we did.

With the fundraising process, how, in your experience, did it differ trying to mount a campaign for national office to raise that kind of money from running for local office? Was it sort of the same thing, only on a larger geographic scale? Or was it a totally different process?

No, it was actually similar. I approached it in a similar way. I used to be very successful at grass-roots fundraising at the local level. It’s amazing how many people, particularly at the local level, are enthusiastic about making the $10 or $25 donation. Now we would say $50 or $100. It can really make a difference, locally. And so my thought was, well, I could explain to people how qualifying for federal matching funds would put a candidate in a position of having a real impact and would put small donors in a position of helping to influence that entire process.

Would you talk a little bit about sort of the obstacles that a lesser-known, lesser-funded candidate faces in trying to mount a national campaign? You mentioned that access to debates was a problem.

The chief obstacle for me was the inability to present my case on television. And in my case, in 1992, it was a problem that originated with Ron Brown and the Democratic Party and the associated media circus that is part and parcel of any presidential campaign. I mean, anybody who saw the interview with me on MacNeil-Lehrer or had a chance to hear any one of a number of interviews that I granted, or even look at some of the newspaper coverage about what I was saying, what I was proposing, what I was doing, would have said, “Well, this person, presuming that he is organizing a real national campaign and likely to qualify for federal matching funds, ought to be included in the early debates and forums.”

And then, in my case, just it wasn’t to be. I mean the Democratic Party basically was refusing, at that time, to even list me as a candidate for the presidency. They listed me for a short time, then delisted me. And I think it was because as a former mayor in a weak field of candidates — and the field of Democratic candidates in 1992 was very weak — it just looked like the Democratic Party was not ready for prime time. I think that was sort of the determination that Ron Brown made at the DNC.

And furthermore, I was very critical of the Democratic Party. I said, “Look, unless this party offers a program to dramatically change national priorities in light of the dramatic developments internationally with the end of the Cold War, we are going to miss a historic opportunity to improve the country.” And they didn’t like that message. And it was because the Democratic Party had been very tied in with kind of the Cold War special interests — the military spending and all the rest.

Were you, at one point, arrested trying to participate in one of the debates?

I was. That came at the very end. Well, not the very end. I think it was March 31, 1992. I had qualified for the ballot in New York. In the state of New York, you may or may not know, ballot access is a tremendous task. That was another thing; it seemed to me that any candidate who was organizing a national campaign and likely to qualify or actually qualified for federal matching funds, and who had achieved ballot access in a majority of states — in my case it was 30 or 35 states where I qualified for the ballot, including key big states like New York, where it’s very difficult. In 1992, well, Tsongas didn’t make it onto the New York state ballot.

And he had won the New Hampshire primary by that point.

Yeah. But he had failed to qualify; all of these arcane rules and so forth. Anybody who had met those criteria, it seemed to me, ought to be included in any and all significant debates — at least be invited. And the fact was that I was included just a few days before in a debate in Buffalo, New York, in which I participated, and then the Lehman College debate organized by, I guess, the Democratic Party of New York City, took the position that I would not be a participant in that debate.

And so I got a ticket. And I was in the audience. And just as the debate got underway, I stood up and requested — and it was a polite request, although I was about 150 feet from the stage — I requested inclusion in the debate. And I identified myself, said that I had qualified for the New York state ballot, and that I respectfully requested inclusion in the debate. And at that point I was jumped on by about six cops and dragged down the stairs and hauled out and handcuffed and taken over to the Bronx Police Station for booking and jailing.

Would it not have been easier for them to have just said no?

It might have. I would have persisted. I would have engaged them in my own debate of, well, why not? I thought: This is the United States of America. If you qualified for the ballot, if you met all of the requirements to be on the ballot, doesn’t the party and doesn’t the journalistic community owe it to the voters to hear from all of the candidates?

Did the media cover that happening?

Yes. It was a small, small deal. It was a little bigger story back in California. I recall Bob Scheer, who was writing for the L.A. Times at the time, talked about Irvine and how I had been mayor of the city and what an orderly, planned city it was. And he said, “Isn’t it bizarre that the former mayor of what is arguably the most orderly city in America should be arrested for wishing to participate in a candidate forum in what is arguably America’s most chaotic and disorderly city?”

And so that was it. I was actually charged first with trespassing, which was absurd. I got a ticket. And then [I was charged with] disorderly conduct, which they later described as disorderly speech, which is an interesting concept. And then they asserted that I resisted arrest, which was patently false. As I put it, the only resistance was my body slamming against the stairs as they dragged me down the stairs and out to the police wagon.

They kept pressing those charges for four years. And in the end, the judge just threw it out. I mean he just said, clearly, I had a constitutional right. I was asserting a constitutional right. And there was no trespass. There was no disorderly speech. There isn’t even such a crime, and that, accordingly, there was no resisting arrest.

I filed the civil-rights claim under 1983, which failed in federal court. The whole claim was that this was a public forum in a public school at Lehman College, and that it was a public-television station that had organized it, and, accordingly, I had a right to be included. And at that time, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled — it wasn’t in my case, it was in another case — six to three, that they described it as something other than a public forum in a related case involving a public-television station, an Arkansas case. So it was a long saga. I learned a lot.

Why do you think it was so difficult to get sort of the commercial media in this country to cover your campaign?

Well, I tell you, it is all related to television. I had a funny experience in New Hampshire. I was invited to a house party. And it went very well. There were about 20 people there. And I gave my little talk and then took questions from them. And people kind of politely applauded and so forth. And then somebody said that they saw me on MacNeil-Lehrer, but they hadn’t seen me much since. I had a campaign assistant with me who had a videotape, cause others said, “I didn’t see him on MacNeil-Lehrer. How can I get . . . ?”

Well, we have the videotape there. Of course, the person had a TV and a video player. We put it in. It was amazing. People just kind of gathered around the TV. And at the end of what was about a 12-minute or 15-minute interview with Roger Mudd, they broke into this huge applause. I mean they were looking at the TV and applauding. I was standing there in the room. And that was so much more impressive to them. It was so much more real than my being three feet or six feet away from them.

Even there.

That’s right. So it’s just amazing. So in America, let’s face it, if you aren’t on TV, nobody is seeing you or hearing from you. So that was critically important. The media, of course, tend to look at things as a horserace and the tactics of it. You see that already now. And the Republican race is really down to just a few candidates. And the Democratic race is down to a couple even, maybe not even John Edwards. He is getting less coverage now. It’s [Barack] Obama and Hillary [Clinton] and so forth. And that’s kind of natural and understandable.

But see, my objective was to just to get some decent coverage to carve out an important, progressive constituency within the Democratic Party and push the party in a more progressive direction, draw attention to America’s cities and towns. Later there was a U.S. Conference of Mayors-sponsored debate forum. And I attended that. The New York Times gave good coverage to that. I mean, it was amazing. The Times just sort of declared me straight out the winner of that. I don’t say this to brag, but it was because I was the only one who was talking about conditions in America’s cities and towns, where the vast majority of Americans live. And how are we going to improve these conditions? Where are we going to get the money? And I had laid out a pretty specific program. And, of course, the Conference of Mayors, the mayors attending, thought it was terrific. But the question is, Who is hearing it? How does it get out? And if you don’t get that mass coverage through television, you are in deep trouble.

Do you think with the rise of the new online media, blogosphere, more new media outlets, YouTube and so forth, a candidate like you would have an easier time getting your message out now?

I think so, in some ways, if you started early enough, if you kind of created a groundswell for the candidacy. There are probably 30 or 40 people who have filed for president. But just a handful seems to be organizing a national campaign. Incidentally, I am largely ignorant of how all of this gets put together. But it does seem to me that out of a search for qualified candidates for the presidency that had started, maybe two years ago, you got your name planted into that. And you begin to create a buzz and a little bit of a demand for a candidacy through the new media, which I guess are a lot cheaper, except hire all of these brilliant people to figure all of this out. But I do think things are changing pretty dramatically. And, of course, the ability to raise money online now is really quite remarkable. And I was surprised.

See, I think John Edwards made a big mistake. This may be a question that you were going to ask. But whether you were going to ask it or not, I am going to answer. John Edwards, I think, made a big mistake. When it was clear that Hillary and Obama were going to be out there, and they were going to break out of the public-financing scheme, they weren’t going to take the public money, I think he should have said, “If we are going to break the lock hold of special interests, we have to have a credible candidate running for the Democratic nomination who is going to stay within the public-financing structures, not be taking the dirty money.” And I think it would have made a big, big difference. I think he missed a big opportunity to distinguish himself.

You used the words “dirty money.” Talk a little bit, if you would, about the role of money in the presidential political system and politics in general?

Well, I am a little bit out of it now. But even with — what is the limit, $2,300?

For the primary and then another $2,300 for the general.

But still, there is so much organized giving that takes place now. But the first $250 that you could raise from individuals, the first $250 is really the cleanest money you can get. The kind that is passionate money; maybe it’s ideological, a personal commitment that private individuals have.

But when you get up to $1,000 or $2,000, $2,300, a husband, a wife, friends, organized giving, you are getting into a much more difficult terrain. Anytime you get into large donors, let’s face it, it’s a special interest, whether they’re corporate interests or individual, wealthy people. That’s very different from the school teacher that writes out a check for $25 — a big, big difference.

How do you think that manifests itself in the system?

I think it just keeps us locked into the special-interest grip. And mind you, the people who are special interest aren’t necessarily bad people. But wouldn’t you just like to have a candidate for president and somebody who was president of the United States who spent most of his or her time on the issues and on governance instead of on fundraising? I mean, it just seems obvious. United States senators now, people who are federal officers, particularly, spend, literally, in competitive areas, half of their time raising money.

And now, when these primary candidates show up, they don’t talk to ordinary people. They might do one or two events with ordinary voters. But for the most part, they are meeting with small groups of people who are pledged to raise lots of money.

What do you think of the system? We talked a bit about the decline of the matching funds. Do you have any idea what would be better? How we could make it work?

I just think you have to improve the matching funds system. Again, I guess now, with all of the frontloaded primaries and stuff that’s largely out of federal control — these are state party and state decisions — with all of that changing as it has, it’s clear you do need about $100 million.

So we need a federal matching system that will allow you to, through small donations that are matched, raise up to $100 million instead of whatever the limit is now. And it allows you to spend more. We used to have spending limits by the states that were pretty severe, as I recall.

I think those are still there.

They probably need to be adjusted as well. And in the end, let’s say it wound up costing $1 billion. Big deal. I mean we eat up a billion dollars just in Iraq, in three days.

Would you support a totally public financing system like we have for the general?

Oh, yes.

Do you think there is any hope for . . . ?

If we could get there, yes. If we could get there, yes. I mean, you do have to create thresholds. Somebody has to have a pretty thriving national campaign. Certain milestones along the way are indicative of that. I wouldn’t set the bar too high. You don’t want to close out too many people. But there are all kinds of ways of setting these things up. It’s just a question of whether you think it’s a good investment of public funds to keep our campaigns and elections as free of special-interest money as possible.