Countdown

Home > Interviews > Richard D. Lamm

Richard D. Lamm

Richard D. Lamm was the governor of Colorado from 1975 to 1987 and a state representative from 1966 to 1974. Though he was a Democrat during his time in public office, in 1996 Lamm sought the Reform Party’s presidential nomination. He is currently the co-director of the Institute for Public Policy Studies at the University of Denver.

Nick Kotz and Josh Israel interviewed Lamm on September 10, 2007.

Talk to us about what you see as the most significant events in your political life, as you reflect on it.

Well, as a freshman legislator back in 1967, I was the chief sponsor of the nation’s first liberalized abortion law. Then I led the fight against Colorado receiving the Olympics in 1972, which sounds a little counterintuitive. But you had to have been there. Colorado had made a bid for the Olympics, and I was the chair of the audit committee. And I could soon see that the committee had dramatically underestimated the costs and overestimated the benefits.

So I put on the ballot the question about whether or not we wanted the Olympics, even after they had been awarded here. So, for the first time in the history of the Olympics, a state turned them down. That was ’72. I should explain, by the way, that the history of the Winter Olympics, prior to that vote, was a history of billion-dollar losses to the taxpayer. So it was partly an environmental issue, partly a taxpayer issue. But in ’72, the people who fought the Olympics were the ones who elected me governor in ’74.

During the governorship, the thing I am proudest of is the people I brought into office with me who became the whole next generation of Democratic leaders. Roy Romer, who succeeded me, I brought in into my cabinet and then appointed him treasurer. On and on it goes.

Let’s talk about when you ran for governor. You spent about $250,000, and you so opposed the way these campaigns were being financed that you walked across the state. Reflect on that. And what, do you think, would be the cost of that? What would be the situation if you were running today for governor?

Let me hasten to say that I was not the first one. All I did was copy a good idea. Lawton Chiles [of Florida] had . . .

Walkin’ Lawton.

Walkin’ Lawton, you bet. And then Dan Walker had done it in Illinois. So all I was really doing was copying. It was one of the great experiences of my life. I was 38 years old and starting to walk around Colorado in a beautiful fall — just a beautiful fall — and I ended up walking 888 miles. And the last miles, John Denver walked with me to the state capitol and gave a free concert to the people. It was just a spectacular experience.

But the reason I did it is because, through one form or another — I had also done a lot of work on the environment in the legislature — I had offended all of the economic interests. And when I really saw this idea of walking, it was so me. I have climbed most of the fourteeners here in Colorado. I mean, it was just sitting there. And I saw it. It was one of those “Eureka!” moments. I thought, “Wow, that’s the way around money.”

Now, that said, I have, for lots of other candidates, tried to reflect and philosophize over ways around money. It’s not easy to do. And the fact that a few of us found a way to do it doesn’t mean that there is always an alternative, or even generally an alternative. David Boren [of Oklahoma], you might remember, took a broom around with him every place he went.

I think those kind of things are so important. But I don’t think it’s an answer to the problem that you are dealing with, because no matter how imaginative [they are], there are not very many of them that work. The idea of having a different job every week that Bob Graham in Florida and others have done, that’s a good technique; that worked. I don’t know that it was near as powerful. But anyway, the point being is that we have such serious problems with electing people to office, that a few gimmicks are not an answer genre.

Could you do that? Could you bring that off in 2008, being able to spend minimal money and having a different way to get attention and meet people?

I think you could. But my answer, I think, is misleading in the sense that the correct answer is “yes,” if you could come up with an imaginative enough gimmick. But it wouldn’t be a walk, because that’s sort of old hat. At least for another generation, I mean I don’t think that’s imaginative. That’s just copycatting. I suspect somebody with great insight and imagination might be able to come up with something.

But the main point is that that is counterproductive to the argument that I am trying to make. The fact that there may be a way around money does not negate the fact that in virtually every race, just such few exceptions that prove the rule, it’s money — not your character, not your platform, not your integrity — it’s money.

What would you do to try to deal with the money issue?

Well, you are asking the wrong generation. Everything that my generation has done to try to make the problem better has either been neutral or counterproductive. I supported everything that Common Cause has done. I am convinced that Common Cause was well-meaning, if naive. But they were certainly well-meaning and to this day, run by people who are on the right side of the longing for campaign reform.

But my generation has gone down one path after another. After all, Common Cause came up with political action committees. So either they haven’t worked or the courts have struck them down. I personally feel that it’s unlikely to get a new opinion out of the Supreme Court given its even worse makeup.

My first choice would be spending limits, campaign limits, corporate prohibitions, union prohibitions — although I might be soft on that one, I don’t know — and limitations on personal wealth. That would be my first choice. But I only say that over my second choice, which is public financing. Because public financing, I fear, is going to be such a [challenge], because I haven’t seen it work. I haven’t really seen it work.

I am not up to date on Maine and Arizona and Connecticut. But I think right now that we should really try to get states — and I am not really close to this. And I don’t know the counterarguments, I really don’t. I am only speaking from my gut. But my gut is that we should really try to do public financing where a candidate gets a certain amount of people to give him $5. And then they qualify for the public financing.

Governor, though you had been a Democrat as governor, in ’96 you were, I guess recruited, to some extent, to run as a Reform Party candidate?

No. I went into that with my eyes open. I believe that both parties are controlled by special interests. I weep that the great Democratic Party, in my days, was just filled with idealists, whether it was the war, whether it was women’s rights, whether it was environment, civil rights. This yeasty, idealistic Democratic Party was soon taken over — with amazing alacrity — by special interests. The influence of the trial lawyers and the teachers union and other groups has, I think, corrupted the Democratic Party.

My argument is, I think America needs a new political coalition. And the rough idea that I would do — now we can talk about whether or not this is really doable; I don’t know that I thought that it could be done — I believe you take the socially liberal Republicans and the economically responsible Democrats, and you form them into a new operative coalition, which would become a second party, just as in 1860 the Republican Party was the last third party to become one of the major parties. I think that there is a natural new organizing idea.

There would be a lot of liberal Republicans who don’t buy the social agenda and a lot of Democrats who realize, even my generation has incredibly compromised your generation, by being what I call a “credit card liberal.” My generation of politicians, not me as much as the federal guys, they sort of won their offices by using your credit cards.

So I am also a big fan and member of the Concord Coalition, and I am very active in something called Americans for Generational Equity. I think that’s one of the new issues in America, how my generation has encumbered their kids and their grandkids. And neither political party has an agenda to keep America great.

I prefer the Democratic agenda when you put me through it, because, well, for obvious reasons in terms of the social agenda and the real disappointing lurch to the right of the Republican Party. But I think the Democratic Party is as compromised by economic interests as the Republican Party. Maybe not quite as much; as soon as I say that, I am not particularly comfortable with it.

But the Democratic Party gets its money mainly from special interests, and the Republican Party gets it from special interests. So I don’t see either party having an agenda either in the area of campaign reform or entitlement reform or anything that is going to prevent this country from slowly transitioning into a weakened dollar, an unbearable burden of taxes, and programs that are albatrosses around the necks of our grandchildren.

You got in that race and challenged the party’s founder, Ross Perot. It looks like you raised something around $140,000, and I gather that Perot had more than that to spend. What would it have taken for you to have a real shot at the nomination, if anything? Was there a chance that you’d become the nominee?

Yeah. I think that the whole thing was in the hands of Ross Perot. And again, I am not naive. But I feel I was lied to. I mean, Ross Perot very specifically said that he was looking for somebody who would carry on the tradition of his issues. And I thought Ross Perot had done a brilliant job raising the issues — some of the issues that I was interested in.

I realize that he was kooky. I knew him slightly before. He has a second home up in Colorado, or had; I think he still has. And I really realized that he was eccentric. But I thought that he was an honest eccentric. And both he and his people just brilliantly baited me into that race. And then not too long after, he announces. He didn’t want somebody to carry on his positions. He wanted somebody that, hypothetically, he could defeat to give him momentum, give him some publicity, make that a race, give him some additional visibility.

I mean, that’s just the way the game is played; I knew that. But I am just very disappointed. My Kentucky Windage estimate was $7 million, qualifying a third political party on the ballot. And I was the first one to try to say you need somebody like Sam Nunn [of Georgia]; my dream team was Bob Kerrey from Nebraska and John McCain, two Medal of Honor winners. If you would get somebody like that, one in each party, I think you would have at least had a chance to form this new operating coalition. But, of course, they were all smart enough to avoid it.

So talk to us a little bit about this year, and mention some names, if you would. Is there a chance of a third party getting going and having influence?

The problem is always — and it was back when I was doing this, too — I believe the Bush administration has been such a disaster that I don’t want to have on my hands what Ralph Nader had on his hands. And you do risk that in a third political party. And I risked it, too. And somehow I thought it was an acceptable risk, because I thought the stakes were so high. And maybe they still are.

I seriously believe that the existing political operation of this country increasingly is going to undercut the dollar. To me, the only honest political platform for our kids and our grandkids is: I am going to raise your taxes and cut your benefits. I have this crazy idea that if somebody like Bob Kerrey or John McCain would come out, say, for something like my idea, [there] is a decade of renewal.

These are eminently correctable problems, if we would have gotten in them earlier, or even now. If you really would say, “Look, we are all going to tighten our belts, and we are going to pay down the debt and get the budget under control and do something about entitlements.” That, in fact, would attract a plurality of Americans. It might not ever attract a majority of Americans. But if you could really get a serious coalition out there with some significant names, and then promise people: Look, there is a rejuvenated America. At the end of this decade, all we need is 10 years and you’ll be proud to leave this country to your kids. I really get excited about that.

Now I think George [W.] Bush and the Republicans are such that — I guess I could be persuaded that a third party would eat as heavily into the Republicans as to the Democrats, but I am still enough of a Democrat to not to want to see the type of Republicans who are running for office. I know who I watch in those debates; I would not want to do anything that might elect them.

What do you make of the efforts of Unity08?

Well, again, that’s my cup of tea. I know [Hamilton] Jordan. I have not been in touch with him, and they have not been in touch with me. And I see it — even though I did the same thing at one time, I think it’s a matter — it’s not so much the odds; it’s the stakes. The stakes are so high. You see it out here. Our state is so fragile.

The Bush administration is leasing up all of the valuable minerals for years and years. Once you give a lease, you are giving legal rights. You have to give them back. And they are leasing out this public land years ahead, decades ahead, maybe a century ahead when they can actually use some of this stuff. And they are just pushing it out the door. They are throwing away the public good. And I just simply don’t want to participate in an effort that might elect the successors of George Bush. I am being inconsistent, but at least I recognize I am being inconsistent.

In ’92, Ross Perot spent several million dollars of his own money. But in ’96, even he, I believe, accepted public financing. Now looking at 2008, it appears that the major candidates on both sides are going to opt out, not only from the primary matching funds, but also the general-election grants. Do you think there is any hope for the public-financing system that we have now?

Yeah, I do, I really do. I think we are just a scandal away. I believe that democracy always does the right things 20 years too late. Churchill was right. I think that you do have a real possibility. I have to keep the faith. I get so depressed on this that I’ve got to answer “yes.” I do think you are seeing — and again, I am not up to date — in these other states, at least the first steps toward public financing.

How would I do that? See, the problem is making this a popular political issue. Because it’s so easy to say, “You are going to give them taxpayers’ money?” But nevertheless, having said that, I do have to keep the faith. It seems to me that if we can’t amend the Constitution or get a different decision out of the Supreme Court, it’s got to be the way to go.

What do you think of the rise of the Internet with smaller donors making contributions? Do you think an independent-minded candidate, not tied to the special interests on either side, could wage a competitive campaign with small-dollar supporters?

Yes. I should have mentioned that. I think there is a lot of hope in that. I think that’s exactly what Howard Dean did and what Barack Obama has done. I think there really is a promise. And that might be the way. That might be the answer. If you can really increase that base, that might be the best alternative, the most practical alternative.

I think the existing system is so entrenched, and it is so hard to make up the money that special interests give the political system. But at least the Democratic Party, I think, has a possibility of doing that, and maybe the Republican Party, too. I just have not looked at the figures. I am sorry I haven’t mentioned that earlier. I do think that’s another alternative.

Last question. We found an editorial you wrote in 1996 with Derek Cressman for The Christian Science Monitor called “Governing for the Benefit of Campaign Donors.” And you talk about the influence of money in the process. How, in your experience, does money corrupt the system? I mean, how does the money that the special interest contributes actually affect policy?

I think all you have to do is look at a given session of Congress. And the denials are so sanctimonious. But the proof is in the pudding. The proof is in what you get out of that, whether it’s milk subsidies, sugar subsidies, the inability to get some tort reform. I think you can look at the Democratic Party and you can absolutely see how this money buys their views on things. The trial lawyers and the teachers’ unions are the ones I find the most offensive. But those are sort of the national ones.

On a more individual, specific level, the latest have been to try tax the hedge-fund people. You see how the Black Caucus is, for the most part, opposing some of these measures because of campaign contributions. I shouldn’t mention the Black Caucus, because it’s just in the great tradition of American politics.

Politicians are for sale. And all you have to do is look at the results of what we get to see, that some special interests are investing their money effectively. They get, generally, what they want.