Countdown

Home > Interviews > Martin Frost

Martin Frost

Martin Frost, a Democrat, was a U.S. representative from Texas from 1979 to 2005. He is now a lobbyist at the law firm Polsinelli, Shalton, Flanigan, Suelthaus, and is the president of America Votes, a 527 committee.

Sara Fritz interviewed Frost on September 12, 2007.

Exactly what does this group [America Votes] do? I have read that you do GOTV, [get out the vote].

It coordinates the activities of a variety of groups on the left — progressive organizations.

All GOTV or are there others?

It’s basically GOTV. It’s a coalition of women’s groups, and labor, environmental groups, and other groups, too, that are interested in turning out progressives in the election. The way it works is that America Votes has what are called state tables, where you have a staff in a particular state that works for America Votes. They convene meetings of all of these organizations. They trade information, talk about what they are doing. It’s an effort to curtail duplication so that the same groups are not going to the same door, so that voters don’t get contacted 10 different times by 10 different organizations.

So they still do their own work?

Yes. We don’t do it directly. They do the turnout work, the partners of America Votes. We play the coordinating role.

You just coordinate it. Does the amount of GOTV in that state increase as a result of this coordination? Or is it pretty much the same?

Well, I have just gotten involved in that, as you know, this year. But clearly the work is more efficient. My guess is that the total amount increases, too. But one of the main objectives in setting this up was to coordinate like-minded organizations. Most of these groups are 501(c)(4)s; that’s the legal description of the organizations.

But they also contribute?

You mean to us or to candidates? If they contribute to candidates, they have to have PACs [political action committees].

But they contribute to your organization?

That’s right. That goes to the overhead of the organization.

How many people do you have on staff?

Well, you’d have to talk to Greg [Speed], who is the new executive director. He could give you the number. We have staff here in Washington, and we also have staff in nine states. We are expanding that to 15 states. We had nine states doing the ’06 election.

Are they all blue states?

No. I’ll show you the map. They are basically swing states: New Hampshire; Pennsylvania; Ohio, which is not blue; Michigan; Wisconsin; Minnesota; Colorado, which is kind of mixed, they have a Democratic governor and elected a Democratic senator; and New Mexico, which is mixed; Arizona, which is mixed. We know in this election, we have already decided that we are going to add three states: Iowa, Missouri, and Nevada. That brings us to 12. Then we are going to add three more. We are in the process of determining that right now.

Basically, most of these are states where our organizations, our partners, already have significant ground operations and significant structure. Not in all cases, but the environmental movement is active in a number of these states. Obviously, labor is active in a number of these states.

I gather in 2006 there was some determination that this really made a difference.

I think so, in terms of turnout.

In terms of turnout and particular victories.

Well, I am not sure about the particular victories. But certainly in turnout. You could look at the states. I’ll have to flip back. Of course, as you know, [Democratic Senator Robert] Casey was elected in Pennsylvania. [Democratic Governor Ted] Strickland and [Democratic Senator] Sherrod Brown were elected in Ohio. I’d have to match up the races. Clearly it made some difference. But the intent of the organization is to have a permanent infrastructure for progressive organizations to work together.

Does this replace these soft-money funded DNC [Democratic National Committee] GOTV efforts of the past?

I don’t think it replaces it. I was not a part of what the DNC did. As you know, I was chairman of the DCCC [Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee]. I don’t know how much money the DNC put into turnout in recent years.

They always used soft money to coordinate that, right?

They used a combination, if I understand correctly, a mixture of hard and soft money. Because there were some apportionment rules that the FEC [Federal Election Commission] established in terms of how much hard money and how much soft money go into things like this and the ballot-allocation rules. I am not versed on the technical rules of the FEC. But I know it was a combination of hard and soft money.

But generally, this organization exists because of the new law. Could I say that?

I don’t know. You might want to talk to Cecile Richards, who was the first president of America Votes. You might want to talk to her about how the organization came into existence. I think there was a desire by a lot of people active in politics to see progressive organizations coordinate their activities better. Now whether it was a direct result of McCain-Feingold, I don’t know. You’d have to ask Cecile that question.

But there is no question that a lot of people felt that traditional progressive organizations often didn’t talk to each other and often duplicated work. I think these organizations had field programs even under the old law, even prior to McCain-Feingold passing. But obviously, field programs by progressive organizations became more important once you had the passage of McCain-Feingold, because the parties are restricted and can’t use nonfederal funds for those purposes. They can use federal funds. The question is how much federal money they can raise. And I think that’s yet to be determined this cycle as to how much federal money they will raise. I gather that the Republicans have raised a fair amount of federal money for this purpose.

But you aren’t trying to raise federal money?

No. It can’t. America Votes is a nonfederal.

I know. But the DNC has gotten out of that business, have they not?

No. What I am saying is it’s my understanding that the Republican National Committee used federally qualifying money. Which, of course, the DNC can still raise, too.

They can still do it, but I don’t get the impression they are.

Yeah. I think there has been less money spent on field operations by the DNC — hard money — than by the RNC, since the passage of McCain-Feingold. People at the DNC have to make those decisions as to why they allocate their hard money the way they do. You would have to ask the current chairman how he plans to allocate his hard money. But I think maybe given the climate, the DNC will raise more hard money than the RNC this year. I don’t think they are yet. I think the congressional committees are raising more money on the Democratic side. But I am not sure the DNC is raising more money.

Hard money appears easier to come by in recent times.

But I am not sure the DNC even today raises as much hard money as the RNC does. Then there is the question of how they allocate the money.

Does the Republican establishment have a group similar to America Votes, a comparable group?

They have a lot of independent organizations.

They have like a Club for Growth?

Yeah. They have independent organizations. I don’t know the extent to which they attempt to coordinate, because you can’t directly coordinate with the national party committees. I have no idea how those relate to the formal Republican structure. But clearly there are independent groups on the Republican side, independent groups that support the primarily Republican candidates that spend a lot of money. Club for Growth would be a good example.

You get small donors, too?

We get small donors. That is correct.

How do you raise that money?

It’s direct mail and online. But the great bulk of our funding comes from direct solicitation of larger donors. There are some small donors, but that’s not where the bulk of the money comes from. The money to operate America Votes primarily comes from two sources. One is dues paid by the partner organizations. There are about 40 partner organizations.

It’s a dues structure?

Yes.

Based on membership?

No. It’s fairly complicated. It’s in the process of being changed a little bit. But if an organization joins at the executive committee level, they pay one amount. And if they are just a regular partner, they pay another.

So it’s an assessment kind of thing.

That’s correct.

Like the old COPE [AFL-CIO Committee on Political Education], for example.

Yeah. I don’t know exactly how COPE worked. But this is based on the level of participation.

It’s not just the volunteer donations.

Oh, no. There are specific amounts depending upon the amount of involvement in the organization. So part of the money comes from dues paid by partners. And the rest of the money comes from contributions made by individuals. The great bulk of those contributions are larger contributions. They are not small contributions. But we do raise some money from small contributions.

Now, Matt Bai says that this organization came out of the discussion that Rob Stein began, and which ended in the Democracy Alliance.

Well, I read the book. I am not sure that’s entirely accurate. But it happened about the same time. Actually, I believe it predated the Democracy Alliance by a little bit.

Do you get money from Democracy Alliance?

Well, they encourage their contributors to donate to a variety of organizations. They don’t have a central fund they write checks out of. At least that’s the way I have seen it operate. They give a list of organizations to their members, and the members write checks directly. To the extent that we have support from Democracy Alliance, it’s been from individual members of Democracy Alliance.

Do you get a check from George Soros every once in a while?

Sure. And from others, too; he’s not the only one. But from a variety of people who are active on the progressive side. Some of those contributions come from recommendations made by Democracy Alliance to its own members. Some of them come from other individuals who are not part of the Democracy Alliance. And part of my job, as president, is to go out and solicit those funds.

Go out and meet with those folks.

Yeah. Which I did, wearing a different hat, 10 years ago when I was chairman of the DCCC. I did a lot of fundraising from individuals.

Very similar occupation.

But some of these individuals may give $5,000 or $10,000. Some individuals give considerably more than that. But there is a base of individuals who give moderate amounts. They don’t give really large checks to support the organization.

Now his thesis seems to be that because of the way this group is organized, and others, it has given the progressive wing of the party a lot more power, a lot more influence.

I think the progressive wing of the Democratic Party has always had a lot of influence. It certainly did when I was chairman of the DCCC. I think, if I understand what he said in the book — I have not read the entire book — he is really talking about individuals more than the organizations. Because progressive organizations, specifically labor and environmental groups, have always had a lot of influence in the Democratic Party, individuals who were significant donors to the DCCC when I was chairman of the DCCC. But I think this has raised it to a different level.

But this is the progressive rich people. He portrays them as somewhat hostile to the DLC [Demoratic Leadership Council] folks. Kind of they were more with [Howard] Dean’s idea. Let me ask you a broader question. Has this shift created any real change in the Democratic Party? I mean, do you agree with him that there has been some kind of change in who is in charge?

Well, there have always been wealthy individuals who have been active in the Democratic Party, just as there have been in the Republican Party. Probably more wealthy individuals active on the Republican side than on the Democratic side. It has given some people, who are not longtime party activists, who believe in the principles of the Democratic Party, who are concerned about the environment, concerned about the war, concerned about women’s issues about choice, the opportunity to act as a group, where they may have acted as individuals in the past. That’s really my understanding.

I have only been to one Democracy Alliance meeting. My first one was this summer after I was named president of America Votes. I know some of the individuals. A lot of the individuals are people that I don’t know, that I had not met previously, who are relatively new to politics and have gotten interested in politics in recent years.

There really are a lot of new faces.

And if I understand the way this operates, it has given them the opportunity to come together, to meet each other, to find out what’s going on as a group, and to make some decisions as a group as to which progressive organizations they want to support.

Rob Stein’s vision was that it would work something like the vast right-wing conspiracy. You wanted a vast left-wing conspiracy.

Well, you have always had a number of very wealthy, very conservative people, at least in recent years, who put an enormous amount of money into politics. My understanding of what Rob was doing was trying at least to offset that on the progressive side, to the degree it was possible. But there are individuals who have put millions and millions of dollars for the last 10 or 15 years into conservative causes.

Well, you guys have a few heavy hitters.

Yeah. But there is some catching up to do. I saw an early version of his presentation. It documented the vast amounts of money that some very wealthy conservatives had put into the conservative movement primarily to help Republicans, in terms of creating a conservative infrastructure that existed outside the Republican Party. I think that’s what Rob was suggesting needed to be done here. There would be a progressive infrastructure that would be outside the Democratic Party in the same way that the far right had put money into creating structures outside the formal Republican structure.

What this author doesn’t touch on, but seems to be the case, is that it was encouraged by the change in the law. That it made it easier for that kind of thing.

Well, it’s an interesting question, because the wealthy individuals on the Republican side had been putting a lot of money into conservative infrastructure even before McCain-Feingold.

But I mean on the Democratic side. It just came at a very convenient time.

Well, that’s correct. He makes the point in the book — and I have met some of the individuals — some of these individuals, who supported Democracy Alliance, would not be comfortable giving money to the Democratic Party. McCain-Feingold or no McCain-Feingold, they don’t necessarily identify themselves as hard-core partisan Democrats. A number of these individuals, I don’t believe, would have written a big soft-money check to the Democratic Party, even if McCain-Feingold had never been passed.

They are more cause-oriented.

They are cause-oriented. I don’t know the majority of them. But some of them I do know from my past political involvement. And others I have gotten to know. And I think there is clearly a group on the progressive side who would not have seen themselves as contributors to the Democratic Party regardless of what the law was.

Everybody, of course, has an idea of how our choice of presidential candidates ought to be funded. But people with your experience have a better idea of how this might work. I am curious, do you like this system? Could you see ways to change it?

The system doesn’t exist anymore. The system has been destroyed. All of our candidates are going to reject federal funding. So by de facto, the system no longer exists.

The system is a different system then? But we still have limits?

That’s correct, on what individuals can give, of course. But in the aggregate, we don’t have limits anymore, because the candidates are all going to reject the federal funding, unless they change their minds.

What do you think of the state of affairs of this situation?

Well, as I think you know, because I have said things over the years, I have long felt that if we are going to really change the way campaigns are financed in this country, you have to amend the U.S. Constitution. Because of Buckley v. Valeo and its progeny, and because of the attitude of the Supreme Court, it’s continued regardless of whether you have had liberals or conservatives on the Court on the free speech issue. You cannot effectively limit aggregate spending without a constitutional amendment. I was one of like three or four people who voted for a constitutional amendment on this subject. I have been consistent on that subject for years. I think there ought to be enforceable aggregate limits. But until such time as you amend the Constitution, you can’t do it. And I don’t believe the Supreme Court’s going to change its attitude.

What do you think about McCain-Feingold?

That’s a longer discussion. I happen to be one of the few people who actually believe in aggregate spending limits. But I believe in them as mandatory, rather than voluntary. If they are voluntary, they don’t work. And they can only be mandatory if the Constitution is amended, giving Congress the authority to set mandatory limits.

That’s a hard call, though.

Well, I know. But you are asking me the real world. And absent a constitutional amendment, you can’t get there from here.