Countdown

Home > Interviews > Paul Manafort

Paul Manafort

Paul Manafort is a Republican strategist and founding partner of Davis Manafort, a consulting firm in Alexandria, Virginia. He has served as an adviser to the presidential campaigns of George W. Bush, Bob Dole, George H.W. Bush, Ronald Reagan, and Gerald Ford. He held positions in the Ford and Reagan administrations.

Jules Witcover interviewed Manafort on March 20, 2007.

Start by giving us your overview of what the state of the campaign-finance law is and whether it can survive in any shape or form, or whether some candidates, particularly the second- and third-tier candidates, might still have to use it.

Well, the whole rationale behind the original campaign finance was to limit contributions and to have information disclosed. Part of that is still being usefully served: the disclosure element. But limiting the expenses of national elections is not happening at all under the current law. And, in fact, money is freely flowing in presidential campaigns now as it was before campaign-finance [reform] in 1976.

Well, what about the second-tier candidates? Won’t some of them be obliged to take whatever they can get from the feds?

The problem is going to be, in my judgment, that the first few candidates are going to raise so much money that they are going to significantly inhibit the ability of the second-tier candidates to not only raise money, but to be heard.

So what do you expect is going to be the result of that? That they are going to drop out?

I think we are going to see the second-tier candidates, for the most part, not be serious candidates, not having an ability to have their campaigns emerge in any meaningful way. And I will be surprised if they are meaningful candidates at the time of the Iowa caucuses and New Hampshire primary. They may be candidates, but meaningful, I don’t know.

Well, there is a school of thought that it would be a good idea to drive those people out anyway. How do you feel about that? Too many people in the early debates, and primary debates, and so on?

I mean, you have some fringe candidates more in the third tier. And with the second tier, certainly on the Democratic side at this point in time, there are some significant candidates who are never going to be heard. And so if the purpose was to make the primaries more open and accessible to serious candidates, campaign-finance reform has failed to do that, in my judgment.

What about the overall influence of money? Do you see it increasing? Or do you see any possibility that because of all the free media that is available now in the blogosphere and other aspects of the Internet, that there may not be so much money spent next time?

Well, I think there is going to be a record amount of money spent this year, both in the primaries and in the general election. And actually, when you look at the way money was organized to be spent under campaign-finance reform, you had pre-convention and post-convention/general election. There emerged, since 1996, a third period of time when funding was important but didn’t exist under campaign-finance reform. And that is, after a nomination had been secured through the primaries and conventions, but prior to the national convention.

Would that still be a problem?

Well, it’s even more of a problem today if you were to take campaign-finance money. And that’s my point: Clinton won the election in 1996, in some respects, from April until their conventions in August when Dole was out of money. And Clinton had plenty of money to define Bob Dole before he had a chance to define himself to the American people. Since that time, in 2000 and 2004, that hole has been dramatically widened. Under campaign-finance restrictions, if you have taken the federal financing for the primaries, you are pretty much going to be out of money, now, even earlier. In ’96 it was in April, but it could be as early as mid-March in 2008. And people are going to have no money to spend, who have accepted federal financing, until August. Well, that’s not going to work. And so to the second-tier candidates, they will be drowned out. The top-tier candidates are not encouraged to take federal financing because they’ll be out of money too soon. And so the foundation of federal financing works against the interests of the candidates.

If the frontloading that has been going on wasn’t taking place, would that be some relief from the problem or not?

I think the hole would still happen. It would still be there, because you don’t have a parallel track in the two parties occurring simultaneously. When you have an incumbent, obviously the incumbent has a different set of issues than the non-incumbent party as far as the primary process is concerned. So in either case now, the magnitude of that hole, if you will, is going to exist. And when you have no incumbent, it’s even more dramatic.

What do you say to the impression that money buys access and influence?

Well, money buys access and influence to people who are, oftentimes, maybe willing to be influenced by improper means. But do I think that if a campaign contribution comes from a corporate executive or lobbyist, that’s going to poison the candidate? No, I don’t. I think there is a role for lobbying that is a constructive role in the political system. And I think that legitimate lobbyists who contribute should not be restricted from doing so.

What about the influence of the 527s and the independent expenditures?

It’s another major hole — 527s, again, sort of add another major hole to campaign-finance law. And they have closed it a little bit in this cycle. But to allow third parties to raise money from any means, and with minimum disclosures be able to run campaign advertising against candidates, while it is a First Amendment issue, I understand, it’s also a significant obliteration of the concept of federal [campaign-]financing reform.

As somebody in your business, how do you feel about having the 527s and independent-expenditure groups involved in a campaign that you are involved in?

I don’t think it’s constructive because they are not beholden to anybody. Under the political party systems, the Republicans are beholden to their party and the Democrats to theirs; 527s are only beholden to themselves and whatever motivations they have for existing, which are usually negative. So do I think they play a constructive role in the political process? No. Do I think that they will continue to play an important role in the political process? Yes.

Is it a fact that there is no collusion between campaigns and those groups? Or is it a fiction?

Is it a fact? I mean, it’s a fact by definition unless somebody has been caught. I think national-campaign operatives who are experienced understand the limitations of collusion. At the same time, because they are experienced, they are able to understand the strategies of whoever they are trying to help or damage. And as a consequence, smart people can figure out pretty easily how to run a campaign that’s consistent with or in concert with candidates they oppose or support. So I don’t think you have to have collusion at the top level. But I think you have to have smart operatives running the 527s.

And that’s what happened in the last two cycles; they have become surrogate campaign structures set up by political groups that are supportive of one party or one candidate but that, for whatever reasons, may or may not be involved in a campaign. And I think what you are going to see in the Clinton campaign this year are people who might normally be in her campaign who are not going to be in her campaign in order to run 527s that will be consistent with the themes and messages of the Clinton campaign.

So one of the ways [it] can work for a formal campaign is leave something undone without getting comment or collusion, and have the 527 or independent-expenditure group come in and perform that function?

Well, I think you saw that in 2004, with the whole Swift Boat episode, where the 527 understood the damage that the swift-boat issue represented to Kerry’s chances. And I think they ran an operation that did hurt Kerry without necessarily being in collusion with the Bush campaign, although certainly being in support of the objective of the Bush campaign.

Isn’t there a danger of that backfiring if whatever they do is harmful?

Oh, sure. If Kerry had been more adept, I think he might have been able to get that to backfire somewhat, because it was so obvious. But the damage had been done before Kerry really paid any attention to it. But the point is, under the current law, the vehicle was legitimate, the message was legitimate. And they were smart enough to use it at a time when smart political operatives understood it was important to define John Kerry. So as long as 527s are allowed by the law, you are going to have that legal loophole aiding or hurting candidates depending on the position they are taking.

Well, isn’t that kind of an outgrowth of the Willie Horton story?

Now you are going back to my days. I think it’s an outgrowth of the current political environment. Again, smart political operatives, with what’s at stake in these presidential campaigns, are going to understand all of the ways to advance their cause. Independent committees were allowed after the 1976 campaign. And those independent-expenditure committees were important in 1980. And the outgrowth of that concept is the 527 today.

What about the growth in your business, talking about all of the aspects of the people who run campaigns or have some effect on campaigns for money? What do you think? Has it been helpful, harmful, or a mixed bag, about the quality of campaigns?

Well, the quality of campaigns, from a technological standpoint, is much [more] advanced. And there are a lot of smart people who are involved today who didn’t exist in political campaign structures eight, 12, 20 years ago. The tone of the debate — every cycle you hear this is the dirtiest campaign ever. But frankly, negative campaigning has been going on all of the way back to [Thomas] Jefferson, when he ran. And so I don’t put any credence in [the view that] campaigns are dirtier today. They are more prolific and more efficient in what they do. And if negative message is the purpose of the campaign at that point in time, they can have much more of an impact, much deeper than in the past, because of technology. But I don’t think they are any dirtier.

But do you think the more money, the dirtier a campaign is likely to be?

Well, the more money that exists, the more things you can spend it on. And the more things you can spend it on will be greater use of the Internet, the blogs, outside of the official campaign structures of independent campaigns that are being managed. So yes, the more money there is, the more ways there are to bring more sources into influencing public opinion.

How can campaigns get a handle now on this explosion of various kinds of freelance voices that come in over the Internet?

Well, the political parties need to determine what’s in their best interest. And I think part of the reason for the 527s being allowed to grow is because political parties have not protected what I would consider to be their competitive position. And that might, one, be out of fear; two, might be out of convenience, because they see the value from their own perspectives. And so it all does tie into how do you manage the inflow of money. If you are trying to limit it, then you are going to be forcing it to find new ways to be spent. And with First Amendment rights you are going to find independent-expenditure committees of the ’80s developing into 527s of this decade [and] to something else in the next decade. So I think the political parties have to be the ones to first step up and decide, jointly, what they are prepared to give up in the way of influence and control to the political system.

Aren’t the parties increasingly overwhelmed by everything else that’s out there in the atmosphere to convey a message?

Well, I don’t know about overwhelmed. I think they have accepted what’s out there. But at the end of the day, the political parties are the parties that control Congress. And Congress sets the election laws. And so the ability to influence the way in which elections are conducted lies in their hands. I think there are a lot of decisions getting made these days viewed as positive that I don’t view as positive. For example, the whole acceleration of the primaries, and caucuses, and conventions happening earlier, I think, emphasizes the importance of early money and big money. And I think you are going to see next year, or actually the end of this year and the beginning of next year with these early primaries, third-party money having even more importance. Because there are going to be so many places that money is going to have to be spent at one time. And the people who are going to have the benefit of that are the first-tier candidates. But that may be the place some of these credible second-tier candidates are going to have to look, without collusion occurring, to try and have their candidacies advanced, meaning in negative campaigns against the front-runners.

But if the calendar was such that the states with fewer delegates went first, wouldn’t it be more likely that there would be some way to extend the decision until . . .

But that’s not the way it’s happening.

I was going to say, but it’s not that way.

No — I mean, what’s happening now is you got everybody wanting to cash in on the money that’s being spent for their state. And as a result, what is developing is a super- super Tuesday, [which] is going to effectively dramatically impact who the nominee is. And if you don’t have money this year to be spending this fall, then you are finished.

What about the idea of buyer’s remorse? Is that out the window now? There is no possibility that if an early mistake is made, or something that’s viewed as a mistake, or one candidate being picked or whatever? [What] recourse does anybody have who wants to have a second thought?

I think dark-horse candidates don’t have any chance. I think the emergence of second-tier candidates is very limited. And I think that buyer’s remorse, they already got it. What I am saying to you right now is that they don’t like the front-running candidates in the parties because they can see already that the front-running candidates, the tier-one candidates, are going to be the only credible candidates in the nominating process. And so what you see today is all you are going to get; when I say today, the next couple of months. There is still a little limited time for somebody to become a tier-one candidate. But the window is closing. And I think after the reporting of the first-quarter fundraising at the end of this month, you are going to have several things even more dramatically shrinking. I mean, the second-tier candidates are going to get squeezed even more. And you may have a reshuffling of some of the prospects of even some of the even first-tier candidates.

So you think that Chuck Hagel and Newt Gingrich, their idea of laying back is out of the question?

I don’t think Newt’s going to be a candidate. I think Newt is one of the most astute political observers on the scene. And while he sees the opening for a candidate, he knows he’s not the one. But at the same time, I think he understands that it allows him to do the things he likes to do, and influencing the process with his ideas to maintain some possibility of a candidacy. But I don’t think he’s a serious candidate, in his own mind. I think one of the problems Hagel is having is figuring out how he can financially compete. And I think he is finding out that he can’t. And so he’s got to decide if he wants to run a Don Quixote campaign or just sit on the sidelines.

What do you make of this effort by Gerald Rafshoon, Hamilton Jordan, et cetera, this Unity08 thing, trying to get a third party going?

I could be cynical and say it’s a money-raising opportunity. Or I could be less cynical and say it’s going to go nowhere. Our country is too ingrained in a two-party system. And to try and advance what they are trying to advance I think has too many obstacles, even with a potential Mike Bloomberg candidacy on the horizon, where he would be able to finance any third-party structure that is set up without his support right now.

Could even he do that considering the kind of money we are talking about now?

The money he has to spend will be necessary to compete with the money that’s going to be spent by the two political parties, and the candidates, and the 527s supporting those candidates. And that just shows you how difficult it is now to mount a third-party candidacy, because there aren’t too many Mike Bloombergs with the record and the money to be a credible candidate.

Talk a little bit about how the role of the press, print journalism, has been affected by all of these technological things that have burst on the scene.

Well, print journalism has been dramatically affected by the Internet, because now that you have these alternative sources of information, it causes the impact of print journalism, and even the networks, to be dramatically lessened. And it forces the news cycles to be constant. Ten years ago you had one or two news cycles a day. Now you have hourly news cycles. And opposition-research efforts are even more important, to be just monitoring and staying on top of things. So it requires campaigns to be constantly vigilant. And the problem with the media is that newspapers have one or two print editions in the course of a 24-hour cycle. And they can’t compete with the blogs and the instant breaking news on the Internet.

Do you buy into the current notion that newspapers are dead or near-dead?

No, I don’t, because you get out into middle America still — I mean, that may be something that’s going to be an issue in 20 years when the last two generations are the senior generation, and the Internet generation becomes the aging generation — but right now, for the next 30 years, newspapers, I think, still will be able to set an agenda. They just won’t be able to maintain the agenda. And how they adapt in creating their own Internet sites and things like that will be the way their influence is allowed to grow. But the importance of the morning newspaper, I think, is always going to be there. The importance of the afternoon newspapers is going to be dramatically decimated, I think.

Is the time coming when the tail will be wagging the dog — that is, that the Internet sites will be more important than the print newspaper, by those who put out a hybrid product?

I think the Internet sites can be equally as important. I mean, they certainly are important in today’s political culture of the negative campaigning. The newspapers, I think, still have more of an advantage in the sense of the positive campaigning that candidates have to have, and how they get their positive message out there.

Have you seen this 1984 ad about Hillary Clinton? Have you heard about it?

I have just heard a little bit about it. I have not seen it though, no.

Well, they have taken an ad that I guess Apple ran against IBM and piggybacked on it.

Right. I have not seen it, so I don’t have anything I can say on it right now.

Do you know any candidates who like to raise money?

Who like to raise money? I have never met with one.

Do you ever meet Rudy Boschwitz?

Well, actually you’re right.

There were some, Alan Cranston, a couple that I remember. Are there any more around now like that?

Most candidates, certainly for president, that are credible hate raising money more than anything else. Rudy [Boschwitz] — you are dating yourself here on that one. And I know the answer, so I am dating myself, too.

Do you do any fundraising yourself?

No. And I am not a candidate, but I hate it, too. Taking that bundler concept, the bundler of today is the [Charles] “Bebe” Rebozo of the late ’60s — I mean, in a sense that they are doing the same thing that “Bebe” Rebozo was doing back in those days. But now they have to, of course, disclose the financing. I think that’s the one piece that still survives from the beginning of campaign-finance reform that has value, which is the disclosure issue. But even 527s are able to avoid some of the advantages of disclosure. But other than that, the campaign finance has not reformed anything in a significant way beyond the disclosure issue, in my judgment. And the impact of violations of campaign-finance reform are meaningless in the sense of they don’t really impact decision-making in a way that will discourage violations of the financing, the state limits, which is the biggest violation you see on a regular basis.

Do you think voters care about how much money is raised and by whom?

No, I really don’t. I think you get outside of the political culture, and people want to see legitimate campaigns that are focused on issues that affect them. And the amount of money spent in campaigns, because it’s prolific on both sides, in the people’s minds don’t affect them in a way that’s meaningful. Now you will have people say, “Well, it’s too much money spent in campaigns.” But I don’t think that’s a decision factor for them when they are deciding who they are going to vote for. And making a campaign issue out of it is never going to sway voters who are not already predisposed to supporting a candidate who’s making the case.

Have you ever attempted to make that an issue?

Well, when I had an underdog candidate, we would always use it as part of a basket of issues. But we always knew that was not an issue that decided it, primaries or elections.

What about the self-financed candidate like Ross Perot or Steve Forbes? Do you think people have any feeling one way or the other about that? Do they resent it or think it is OK?

Well, even Perot was never viewed as somebody who was going to win. So I don’t think people have ever truly analyzed that in a serious way. But no, I don’t think people are afraid of money in politics. They don’t make decisions based on money in politics. And I have never seen in any campaign poll that we have ever done where that was a deciding factor with people, as I say, who weren’t already predisposed. You will have leaning Democrats who will say that’s important to them. But they are going to vote Democrat on some issue. And so in polling data that we have done in the midst of campaigns, while there may be tactical use of such an issue, there was never really a strategic value to it.

What kind of a job do you think the press and television are doing these days compared with 10 years ago?

I don’t think they are doing a better job. That’s a question I haven’t thought a whole lot about, to give you more detail. I think the all-news-all-the-time mentality forces political reporters to have to file stories. And in the course of filing stories, their research may not be as thorough as the research that was required of reporters 10 or 15 years ago. And I think the Dan Rather story, where you also had a predilection in the part of the producer of the story, gets exacerbated even more so within this environment.

Now the print reporter is not obliged, at least in the major organizations, just to write a story at the end of the day. But he has to be on the tube. He has to feed the website. And, for all I know, cook the editor’s dinner.

There are more demands on political reporters. And I think their personal life is probably as torn apart as it can be in today’s political media environment. And because of that, I think you have stories that are harder for them to get to the bottom of the facts. And sometimes you are going to have stories go prematurely that are going to damage a candidate, and at the same time not advance the purpose of reporting.

Do you think there is less trust now in exchanges between press and political figures?

I think it depends on the political figures. I think there is more wariness on the part of political figures, although candidates like McCain and Obama see the value of working with the press and have been more outgoing, because they know they can trust more by virtue of being more open to the press. So in that sense, press relations become strategic, not just tactical.

Overall, do you have a healthy feeling about the way politics is going now? Or do you wish for the good old days?

Well, the good old days are never going to come back. And so you have to look at the future, not the past. And to think that things are going to be the same 10 years from now as they are today would be a mistake. And that’s going to change the dynamic of the way campaigns are run and the interplay between the media and campaigns. And with technology, you can’t expect things to be the way they were. And so what will it be like 10 years from now? I think there will still be adversarial relationships between the media and the press. But which media? I don’t know.