Countdown

Home > Interviews > Paul Kirk, Jr.

Paul Kirk, Jr.

Paul Kirk, Jr., a Democrat, is the co-chairman and co-founder of the Commission on Presidential Debates, a tax-exempt organization established in 1987 to sponsor and produce presidential and vice presidential debates in each general-election period. He was the chairman of the Democratic National Committee from 1985 to 1989 and chaired Ted Kennedy’s 1980 presidential campaign. Kirk is a retired partner in the corporate department of Sullivan & Worcester, a Boston-based law firm.

John W. Mashek interviewed Kirk by phone on April 12, 2007.

Let’s start from a historical perspective. In 1980 Senator Kennedy had the awesome job of trying to win a primary against a sitting president. That was the second election, I believe, in the use of public financing. Was it difficult to qualify for funds in the various states where you had to qualify?

The 1980 election was a constant, daily fundraising challenge to try to meet the threshold to get public financing. The senator’s presidential campaign started late in the campaign cycle, obviously, compared to what goes on these days or most campaigns prior to 1980. Campaigns, as you know, these days begin the day after the previous general election. But yes, it was a constant struggle of a finance team basically hat-in-hand, trying to meet the thresholds of various states and jurisdictions.

My recollection is that since you were challenging an incumbent president, even though some Democrats may have been leaning toward Kennedy, there was immense pressure from the party itself to get behind the sitting president.

No question about it. This was a rare occurrence when a very prominent Democrat would challenge an incumbent president of his own party. And obviously there were sides chosen and lines were drawn very clearly. And so it was an uphill battle, obviously, for Senator Kennedy. The other thing that was difficult in that campaign was that this was just after the seizure of the Iran hostages, and the Carter campaign had adopted what they called the Rose Garden strategy. That is, the president was not going to go out and campaign. He would not debate. He just basically stayed in Washington.

But all of the armaments of possibilities and grants, HUD [Department of Housing and Urban Development] grants and other things, were the ammunition used with great largess and selectivity by the Carter campaign in those key primary states. And that, in addition to the fact that it was a challenge to an incumbent president, helped to basically either freeze, neutralize, or bring the governors, and mayors, and other public officials who are dependent on those federal funds in their jurisdictions, to the Carter camp. So it was a difficult run.

Well, my memory may be hazy on this, but didn’t Kennedy suspend his campaign rather than end it in either — Illinois strikes me as the state where, perhaps, you and others encouraged him. I don’t know if you were running out of money or there was just a situation. But I know in the primary run there was some place along the line that he did suspend. And then did he later resume in some of the Western states?

Yeah. My recollection was that first of all, as you know, most of these primary nights were on Tuesdays. And it became a little like the prizefighter who says, “Not another Tuesday night — I am going to get TKO’d or KO’d here.” So we got to the point, at the New York primary, where basically the campaign was at a juncture. And the decision was made, if you can’t win New York, maybe you ought to declare a “we did our best” and get out of the race. It turned out that the senator did win in New York. And then what happened is that there was sufficient polarization between a lot of Democrats and President Carter at the time, that there was sort of a backwater built up. That is to say, the Kennedy campaign became synonymous with those who said, “Anybody but Carter.” And so they were, as much as anything, sending a message that the Carter presidency, indeed, had not been effective.

Didn’t Frank Church get in late or something? Maybe that was another year. That shows you how my memory is foggy on that.

Well, it was a speculation about maybe getting a more centrist Democrat than Kennedy was perceived to be. You talk about Scoop Jackson and others who try to get in, and maybe at the time of convention sort of be able to. Then also, a few favorite sons in the later states started to mobilize. But it was the funding more than anything, or the lack of funding, that caused the senator to have to, in effect, suspend the amount and degree of travel that he undertook in the early part of the campaign. And that was sort of leading up to the California primary. Then there was a period, a building up and trying to save the funds for the California primary.

In the meantime, the senator continued to challenge President Carter to a debate and basically said, “If you will debate me on the fundamental issues of the economy, and health care, and the other things that so much had prompted the candidacy in the first place, then we can talk about whether I stay in the race or not.” Carter did not engage in the debate, did not pick up that challenge. And so Senator Kennedy chose to take his fight to the convention and to, then, fight on credentials.

Well, just in reflection on that campaign, we have had towering inflation since then; the dollar isn’t worth as much. Are you still rather awestruck when you see the amounts of money that are being raised in the current campaign?

I think awestruck is very much an understated term. I tell you what: I believe that the amount of money that flows into presidential campaigns, and congressional and senate campaigns is, in a very serious way, eroding our fundaments of our democracy. I think there is too much money in the process. I think it alienates and distances the Average Joe from the process, because the process does not belong to him anymore; more than anything else, in terms of the Beltway, the process is for sale. And in many ways, in terms of the Congress and Senate, as demeaning as it is, the members of Senate and Congress would have to hold three and four fundraisers every day, on the phone, lining up funds, and so forth. It is a process that works for them. Because the incumbents are able to raise more money, the playing field is not competitive. And I don’t think that, in the long haul, is really a healthy situation.

As one wag put it recently, the presidency may not be for sale, but the devil is being rented.

Yeah. There was an old expression, not too long ago, that money was the first primary. But it was not anywhere near the enormous amounts of money being raised this year.

Of course in your day, as a campaign chair, we didn’t have the Internet. And you had to raise much of that money to qualify on good old shoe leather and some phone calls. And now direct mail is almost kaput, it costs so much. And as you said there, there are the mammoth fundraisers in Washington and elsewhere. You can’t go on Capitol Hill at night now and not stumble into three or four fundraisers, either by candidates or [others]. And the House candidates have to start collecting money the day after they are elected.

And the other troublesome aspect of this is obviously most of the money that’s raised has been raised for television. And most of the ads on television are negative. And so you get this political climate that I think is not a healthy one. And by the time the voter gets through watching all of these scorched-earth ads and so forth, they say, “Well, it’s a pox on both your houses — I don’t care for either one of the candidates.” As a result, I think we get a low voter turnout.

With 20 states, possibly — and there may be a few more, there may be less — holding a primary on February 5, the money that is going to be spent with those big markets in Texas, California, Florida, Pennsylvania, New York. [Even with] this so-called low rate that candidates can get on local television, I mean the local affiliates in Iowa, and New Hampshire, and Nevada, South Carolina, are just due to make gobs of money because that’s the only way. Retail politics may work a little in Iowa and certainly New Hampshire. But, my gosh, 20 states?

No. I’ll tell you what we got here is a virtual national primary. And the only way you can compete in that is to have a famous name. And, in addition, you have inordinate amounts of money. You can’t compete in the number of states you just mentioned without doing a huge national TV buy. That costs millions and millions of dollars. Perhaps it’s an unintended consequence, but frankly, we are going to know who the nominees are by Valentine’s Day.

And so it extends the general election, which makes the conventions less and less meaningful. And when you have a virtual general election that long, people are so worn out by the time they get to the main event, I don’t know what their attitude is.

Well, you set me up beautifully for moving fast-forward to the 1988 election cycle, when you were the national chairman [and] the convention [was] in Atlanta, nominating then-Governor [Michael] Dukakis. And there wasn’t anywhere near this period, but we knew he was going to win quite a long time before the convention.

And I recall — of course you are going to get naysayers on this — but the Republicans concentrated, at that time, on tearing down the Dukakis legacy in Massachusetts, the so-called Willie Horton ad. And with all due respect, that seemed to be a huge turnaround for [George H. W.] Bush, a sitting vice president. And now maybe Dukakis didn’t respond fast enough, at least some pundits have alleged, but in ’88 it was a shorter period than, as you mentioned. And the feeling is, or at least mine is, that, from Valentine’s Day to the conventions, the two nominees and their staffs are going to be hard at work — let’s face it, going to negative advertising to tear down the other guy, or woman, depending on who is nominated.

Exactly. And the truth is, and my view of it just on the money situation, more probable than not is the fact that Michael Dukakis was nominated because he was able to sustain his primary campaign, because he did a better job raising money.

But what happened was, they called them the seven dwarfs or whatever. [It was] very difficult for each or all of them to sustain the sort of fundraising momentum. But Michael Dukakis, with the help of Bob Farmer and others, was able to have enough residual funds to get through Wisconsin and continue to March, where the funds basically were drying up on the other campaigns. And then, just as you say, the Bush campaign against Dukakis, it was the days of the great Lee Atwater. And there was, of course, “define your opponent before he defines you.” The definition of an opponent became more the demonization of the opponent. And I think there was time when some of the — how should I say it, maybe it’s an overstatement — but the ability in public discourse and debating of issues really took on a much harder edge. And the old story that the consultants say, “Well, it works.” And perhaps it does for a short-term victory. But back to my earlier point, when you really think about the health of a vibrant democracy, I think it’s a bad road to follow.

And that campaign, even though Vice President Bush was an early heir-apparent, as you remember, he didn’t exactly waltz in. So he wasn’t the shoo-in that the press and others made him to be. But, of course, Governor Dukakis had to win the nomination, too. And he had opponents to deal with, like Al Gore and others, on Super Tuesday, in the South. You weren’t, I know, directly involved then; it was Bob Farmer. But as national chair, was money-raising very difficult for Dukakis?

I wouldn’t say it was easy. But his campaign did, I thought, a very good job of raising money. And what happened was, as time went on in the primaries, he won more than he lost, and momentum started to build. And he had done a good job as governor of Massachusetts, and had sort of a base, if you will. And one thing led to another. And then, out of the convention in Atlanta — I think you were there — Dukakis moved 17 points up.

We have written, those of us who have covered politics, early in the year that it would probably take $50 million, bottom, to be a player. And, of course, the top-tier — I sort of hate those words — the three in both parties will probably have no trouble reaching that. And my feeling is that it’s going to go up to $75 [million] or $100 million.

I wouldn’t be surprised. I don’t know where it will hit the brake. But that’s where it’s all a meteoric sort of ride. The whole thing was a tough enough challenge for the chairman [in] 1988. But when I came in we had a $6 million deficit and theirs was a $2 million surplus. In dollar terms, we lost the presidency but held powerful chairmanships and so forth. But now we are talking about just one candidate at $50 million and so forth. Keep in mind what the party can do. But it’s a whole different league.

Well, now we can talk a little bit about the Commission on Presidential Debates. And before I ask a question, I have to make a full-disclosure statement that I was on a panel in ’88 and ’92 when chairmen Kirk and Fahrenkopf were presiding over the debates, and indeed was even in ’84 when the League of Women Voters was organizing the debate. With that as a preface, there has been a notion that has stirred in the public eye, mainly by Ralph Nader and commentators like Chris Matthews, that somehow the debates are tainted. Not so much by you and Fahrenkopf, but the fact that corporate sponsors are behind the debates. Can you address that please?

Sure. I think that’s, from my perspective, a total straw man. The Commission on Presidential Debates, as you know, receives absolutely no government funding, no public funding, [as a] 501(c)(3). Its mission is civic and public education, to try to engage people more than has been the case in a public discourse and public dialogue and better understanding of the issues. It’s a tax-exempt organization. And its funding comes from foundations that have educational missions and understand and are compatible with the commission, civic-minded, and corporations that have a sort of understanding about what we need to become a more vibrant democracy.

The ultimate funding comes from venues — cities, colleges, and universities that host the debates. And we have a staff of one. We outsource a lot of important production issues when it comes to election year, so they will be proficient how the debates are produced. But to think that the corporations have any kind of influence or issue-agenda influence on anything that the presidential debate commission has ever done is just flat wrong.

Does any funder ever approach you to ask, request, demand — you can use the verb — that the panel or the moderator ask a certain question or line of questioning?

Never. No.

Of course, we have moved, and wisely, to a single moderator rather than a panel, which I think was a bad idea even though I was on them. I think it sort of diffused the whole thing. But what about the two parties? The League of Women Voters, with all respect, did have problems with the debates and with the panels. And you get into the debate on the debates. It seems to me that things run rather smoothly. I don’t happen to know what goes on behind the scenes, but in these last two elections, the debates have come off rather smoothly, and there seems to be no furor over the naming of the moderators. Now perhaps there is something going on behind the scenes that I know nothing about.

No. I think just to put things into a little bit of perspective, first of all, debates have probably taken on a life and an importance larger than what was envisioned when the commission came about. I mean, they were important. But I think as time has gone on — a lot of this relates to, in terms of the amount of money that’s poured into paid advertising, all of which is pre-scripted and a lot of it’s negative and so forth — the presidential debates have become the only sort of window of opportunity for the general election, to compare one, two, or three candidates in a face-to-face fashion. It’s as extemporaneous as you are going to see them, both in what they say and how they conduct themselves, body language and otherwise, the people to get what I refer to. It’s not perfect. I don’t mean to say that. But it’s the most unvarnished look. Because people will have, I think, their ultimate choice.

Well, being that there is no vice president running this time or no total heir-apparent, apparently your co-chair, Frank Fahrenkopf, believes the debates could be more important than ever this time. And he does not foresee an extended skirmish, once we know who the nominees are. And he didn’t say little trouble, but it stands to reason, to him, that there will be three presidential [debates] and one vice presidential [debate] because of the necessity of it for the candidates.

Right. In fact there is also, I think, on the part of public and the folks in your business, that there is now not only an expectation, but a feeling that the debates are our only educational opportunity, and that they have become, basically, inevitable as a permanent fixture in the general-election cycle. I do agree with what Frank said: You have one where there is not an heir-apparent, not an incumbent president or vice president. There is much less chance that someone is going to try to slide out of the debates; rather, they are going to look forward to the opportunity to use this platform on which they have never stood before, to compare and contrast themselves with their opponents for the presidential election. You asked about the moderator. There had been issues in the past. I think, without sounding presumptuous at all, that the commission has taken on a maturing credibility, if you will, over time. And it has been nonpartisan. It has been respectful of journalists. 

Well, we had Jim Lehrer, Gwen Ifill, Bob Schieffer, and was it Charlie Gibson?

Charlie Gibson. The two campaigns tried to dictate to the commission. Frank and myself, on behalf of the commission, signed their memorandum agreement, in which case they also wanted the journalists to sign the memorandum.

And you said no.

We would never make that a precedent, to have something like the commission be dictated by one of two political campaigns. It’s not where we are. And I think, without reversing it to the other side as being arrogant toward political candidates, it is the toughest part of the commission’s job, I would say, the final negotiations of the campaigns over just the details. We have been fortunate over the maturing process to be able to collect the sites, collect the dates, help find a format, put together the schedules, decide whether it’s a live studio audience, who is invited, decide whether it’s a town meeting, decide who the moderator is, and so forth. You get into the nitty-gritty about whether there are lights on the podium and all that stuff that they did in 2004. But that’s all a part of some sort of high-stakes campaign and their staff. But in terms of the foundation of how the debates are conducted, it’s basically over the course of time, I think, that we have established our credibility. I think as time goes on we will have less problems and not more.

As an aside here, Frank Fahrenkopf will say, “Well, Republicans think less of these debates than Democrats, and I come under a lot of heat.” He says it with a smile on his face. But I daresay that some Democrats may moan to you from time to time. So it isn’t just a one-way street.

I would say the parties get equal time on that.

We have this long period from February 5. I think the Republicans are meeting in Minneapolis, practically, on Labor Day weekend.

You mean for the conventions?

Yes, the conventions. So there is going to be this long, long period. Right now, several of the Democratic candidates have turned down a debate in Las Vegas that Fox [News Network] was trying to organize. And I know there are other details on Fox that prompted the Democrats to get out. This is just a guess on your part, I know, but I wonder if television stations, newspapers — because there will be so many on February 5, and the candidates can’t be everywhere — that people will try to stage debates that could have almost the factor of upstaging the actual debates once the conventions are completed.

I think that’s a fair comment. I would imagine, as you said earlier, that whoever the nominees are for the two major parties, that there will be some organizations that will say: “First of all, the conventions are less meaningful than ever. We know who the nominees are. Let’s get the debates started.” And so it wouldn’t surprise me if we get some entities, otherwise, who try to advance the debate schedule.

I’d guess the candidates would probably turn that down though, because it takes so much time. And [for] your preparation and everything, they would want to wait. But that’s just a sheer guess on my part.

Yeah, and also the events turn, and change, and so forth. And candidates are, if anything at that point, pretty risk-averse.

Well, I am sure you wouldn’t be happy if the commission didn’t get sued by some independent candidate who hasn’t got [a statistically significant] following.

We wouldn’t know what to do.

Wouldn’t know what to do if you weren’t sued. Chairman Fahrenkopf said, “We have to provide a little income for lawyers, too, because somebody is certainly apt to sue because he or she wants to get in on the debates.”

We have been down that road almost every time. 

The courts have held for you.

In terms of criteria, all of which are objective, preordained, and proscribed and so forth. So we haven’t had a problem in terms of the ultimate decision in the courts.