Marty Russo

Do you miss being a Representative for the 3^rd District Illinois?

I do. I miss doing what I did back in ’74 to 1992. I wouldn’t want to be there today because I think it’s dysfunctional.

I think main reason is, the problem that you face today is that in the Senate, it takes 60 votes to do anything.

This is a country that was based on majority rule. You get 51 votes, you win. You want to be President of the United States, you get 50.1 percent, you’re the President of the United States. With the old rules that they have in the Senate in order to move on legislation, you need a unanimous consent to do that. Any member of the Senate can object.

And if somebody objects to taking up a bill, then you have what is called, you have to move to continue debate on an issue.

That takes 60 votes. And when I first came here back in 1975, it took 67 votes. So, back in that day, the Democrats who had 67 senators back then changed the rules to 60 so you can move legislation faster. But in my day, in the 18 years I was there, I can’t remember cloture being such a big deal, because both sides of the aisle were interested in moving legislation and making a deal. Today, I think they’ve had more cloture votes this year than all of 1960′s and 1970′s.

And the American people are reacting to that. That dysfunction is turning them off on the parties. And I think the parties better realize that they’re killing the golden goose. This is a great democracy. And if the American people believe that you’re dysfunctional, it creates a huge problem in their ability to have any comfort in what you’re doing and trusting you. And I would hope at some point that the leadership of the House and the Senate would get together and work it out.

The House operates differently because we have a Rules Committee and we can — with a certain extent since 1994, it’s been do it my way or the highway. And I think that’s wrong. I don’t think Tip [O'Leal] ever did that. I don’t think Jim Wright ever did that. And certainly [Carl Albert] didn’t and the speakers I served under — and Tom Foley was the last one I saw — served under who was trying to accommodate everybody. But you still are the majority party. You need to win your issues. But at least you’ve got to give the minority a chance.

The Senate right now, look at the debate we’re having over health care. You know, people claim special interests, but nah, the members are having a problem dealing with it. It’s nothing to do with special interests. It’s nothing to do with money — what’s going on. It has to do with the fact that it’s an incredibly complex, hard issue to deal with.

And within the Democratic party, we can’t agree, which makes us look like we can’t govern. And the biggest problem the American people face today is that their government is not governing.

They’re having a difficult problem governing. And so, anyway. Anyway, I didn’t think that’s what we would talk about, but you gave me an opening. But politicians will talk about anything.

Have you noticed any changes over the last 30 years in electoral politics?

Well, I mean, the cost of campaigns have skyrocketed since I first got elected in 1974 where I spent I believe 85,000 dollars against an incumbent who spent 50,000 ’cause nobody thought I could win the race. And I actually went in debt for about 35,000 of the 85.

Kind of crazy, especially when you don’t have that kind of money to bank, but back in those days, banks actually loaned money out, so we were okay. But the most amazing thing about politics today versus before is how partisan it is, how angry it is, and how, at times, it difficult to govern.

And I know people try to blame that on special interests, but the truth of the matter is, the issues we deal with today are much, much more complicated than they’ve ever been. The problem members face today is that the cost of elections is gone through the ceiling.

The length of elections is incredibly long, which increases the cost of it. And so, members of Congress spend a lot of time raising money. They don’t like it. Trust me, I was a member. I never had to raise this kind of money. But even a non-contested race today, you’re talking a million dollars. A million dollars one has to raise. Then, you have an obligation to the party to raise money for the party on top of that. So, not only do you have to raise money for yourself, but you now have to raise money for the party, which in my day, wasn’t true.

I had a tough enough time raising money for myself, let alone raising money other candidates. These leadership pacts totally ought to be abolished. I didn’t come to Congress to raise money to help you get elected. I came to Congress to do a job and then get myself elected, if the constituents want that.

But for me to have a pact where I’ve got to give you money so someday, if I run for leadership or run for chairman of a committee or something, you’re going to help me. That ought to be eliminated from politics completely. That is absolutely a thing that ought to be eliminated.

So, the pressures to raise money are greater. The cost is greater. Dealing with whoever you’re going to battle with has gone from battling your opponent to battling the party, infrastructure, 527′s, the internet, the bloggers, new media techniques. So, all of a sudden, this campaign goes from costing you 100,000 dollars to three million dollars. Now, when I was in Congress, probably a state senate race would cost you two to three million.

Today, it’s about 16, 17 in million dollars to run the state level, why? The cost of the campaign. Mainly, TV. Now, I served on the telecommunications subcommittee back in my days in 1976 to ’79. And I always remember that the airwaves are owned by the American people. And one of the mistakes we’ve made in de-regulating those licenses is that they’re automatically approved every six years unless we take it away. In the old days, you had to earn it in order to get it renewed.

So, one of the things we ought to say to the people who are using our airwaves, broadcast people, cable, radio, part of the thing you have to do to keep that license from here on in is to make a certain amount of time that’s given extremely cheaply. Otherwise, we pull the license. That will reduce the cost of campaigns probably by 50 percent.

And then what I would do is then I’d cut the cost of the mail. I mean, mail pieces are really incredibly costly. We’ve got to figure out how to reduce that cost. But the biggest cost is TV. There’s nothing that compares it. Friends of mine who are running in California have to raise 30 million dollars to run for the Senate. There’s something wrong with a process that requires you to raise that kind of money to be in the US Senate.

The other thing I think ought to happen on the way to what I ultimately believe is the right thing to do, which is public financing, is between now and the time we get to that, you ought to drop what anyone can give to a member of Congress. It used to be, it was 500 dollars. Then it got to be a thousand dollars. Now, it’s now 2,400 dollars per election. So, 2,400 in a primary. 2,400 in a general. That’s 4,800. Husband and wife, what is it 40 — 9,600 dollars to one candidate.

And if they have a leadership pact and they want your help can give another 10,000 dollars. So, one person can give and family can give 19,000 to one candidate. It’s crazy. And the thing that galls me probably more than anything else is that they index it. For years, we fought for the minimum wage. We couldn’t get the minimum wage index, but members of Congress can index campaign financing. And that ought to be changed. They ought to drop it down to 500 dollars an election and keep it there.

And then let them vote every couple of years on raising that rate like they have to vote on the minimum wage. And if that happens, it’ll force the members to pass legislation to reduce the cost. So, if you’re not getting enough money in, you ought to figure out how to cut the cost back. Well, what you do, you tell the people in TV world. You know, it’s kind of interesting. When you look back on McCain/Feingold, and it was a great bill initially. They tried to do the right thing.

But one of the key provisions in McCain/Feingold was this reduction in cost on TV and radio. It survived the Senate, but it got to the House side when it got to conference, ’cause it wasn’t in the House version. Guess who got it out? The broadcasters. Now, they kick us in the butt all the time saying that we’re special interest and we affect legislation and members of Congress are being bought off.

But their lobbyist and their owners called the Republican leadership and Republican members of Congress, says this’ll cost us money and jobs. And that’s their right to do it. I’m not criticizing that. But one of the key features that would have reduced campaign cost and therefore the criticism we would be getting from the so-called TV people who are — nightly news kick you in the butt every time, would have been removed, to a certain extent. But no, they were concerned about this legislation has an adverse effect on our business.

Cost us jobs, and that’s their right. They have the right to petition their government for redress of grievances, and they won that issue. Doesn’t make them bad people, just like when a member of Congress makes a decision. Doesn’t make him a bad person. He didn’t do it because of the money. Have you been on both sides of that aisle? Have you been a member and now a lobbyist? It’s insulting to hear that the members of Congress are bought off. They are not bought off. We make it very clear, they don’t pay to play. That’s the perception.

In our life, perception is reality, but they don’t do that. The few that do, they’re in jail. And that’s exactly where they ought to be. But to cast this [unintelligible] on everybody else in other 535 members, I think is really unfair. And that’s part of the problem for people who want to do these reforms that they’re talking about, ’cause I’m a big supporter of public financing. It’s hard to go and ask a member of Congress to make a reform when you’re calling him a crook.

What is your mission here?

Well, we create opportunities for clients. We help them deal with issues that have an adverse effect for them. So, there’s two ways. You can be on the offense, saying here’s an important piece of legislature. An amendment that will have this effect on the American people and the economy and the country, and therefore it’s good for America and we’ll make our argument.

And if 51 percent of the members of the House and Senate agree to that, other than if it’s a controversial, then you’ll need 60 in the Senate, you move forward.

Other times, there’ll be pieces of legislation that have an adverse affect on your business or on your sector of the economy. And even though members of Congress and the President really have the best interests of the country at stake, they’re not perfect. And they don’t have the perfect solutions to all the problems we face. So, they may put something out there. And all of a sudden, whoa. This is going to affect a quarter of the economy in this way. Now, is that worth it?

Are we willing to have this effect for this other effect? And the job of a lobbyist, whether you’re a White House lobbyist, an agency lobbyist, a paid lobbyist, a district lobbyist — like, somebody came into my office wanting more social security — they’re all lobbyists. They’re all doing what the Constitution says they have a right to do. They have a right to do that.

They have a right to point that out. And so, we’re all lobbyists in a sense. We all have an interest in making sure that what happens in America is not only good for America, but it doesn’t kill me at the same time.

And so, we have a right to give credible information to policyholders to make decisions. CEO’s come and see the President of the United States. Academia is come to see the President of the United States and House members. You have information from the CIA on issues of national security. So, everybody’s coming in and pushing something. And what we have to do, as members of Congress and as the President, is put together the best piece of legislation we can that really does what we want it to do.

Now, look, there are a lot of unintended consequences that happen. We don’t start off trying to create those unintended consequences. We think we’ve covered everything. But how do we know all the different ripple effects that’s going to happen to a piece of legislation?

What’s your take on access lobbying?

Well, the bottom line is, what we’re trying to do is influence policymakers in a way that they understand the effect the legislation on our client. That’s what we have to do. I mean, that’s their right. They’ve hired us to do that. So, we’re going to go in and give the best argument we can from our perspective. And every member of Congress knows that.

In my days, on the telecommunications subcommittee, trying to figure out what’s the best way dealing between the broadcasters and cable was new back then. Nobody knew other than cable going over the mountains in Colorado, it was ever going to be cable.

We have the pay cable. Are we going to lose over the air? So, there was arguments on both sides. And so, I’d listen to both sides. I mean, I didn’t have a strong position one way or the other. Most members don’t. And the ones who don’t, they have to gather information. Where do they gather it from?

Well, on my committee, I was gathering from the staff who was helping to write the rewrite of the 1934 Communications Act. I gather from other experts on the committee who did it longer before I got there. And then I would contact the people on one side, which would be the broadcasters.

And then I would contact the cable people. I want to know their best argument. I want to hear what do you think’s going to happen if we allow X, Y and Z.

What’s the fundraising side?

Well, the fundraising’s again, as I stated earlier, the problem with the fundraising side is that elections have gotten too costly. It’s not a question of if a lobbyist has access and gets in and talks to a member. My constituents have better access to me than the lobbyists. I go home every weekend. I went home every weekend. And I had town hall meetings.

And they come to it and they let me know how they feel about things, just like August break. The constituents, well, they should have been a little bit more civil, but that’s okay — they’re letting members know how they feel. It actually changed a bunch of minds. It’s how the process is supposed to work. Now, the fundraising side of it is because elections have gotten too expensive.

That’s why I’ve always said, there’s too much money in politics. You’ve got to get rid of it. And how do you get rid of it? Well, you’ve got to think all the Buckley vs. Valeo case, which says I can restrict how much you give me, but nobody can restrict me from how much money I want to spend.

Creates a huge problem in trying to set up a public financing system, because you have these self-funders who the judges have said can spend a billion dollars if they want. And we’ve had a few candidates, as you’ve known over the last several years, who spent 60, 70, 80 million dollars of their own money. Some won, some lost. But because there’s so much money, there’s this perception that there’s a pay to play.

That’s the perception. And in our business, that’s the deal. Perception is reality. And as a member, it’s insulting to me to see that statement being made, because I know whether you’re the most conservative individual, the most liberal individual, or the moderates and [centrists], they don’t come to Washington to raise money to get re-elected all the time.

They came here to do something.

Why are lobbyists involved in fundraising, and do you guys participate in that?

Well, again, it’s called the First Amendment of the United States Constitution. We have a right to freedom of speech. The courts have held, that is speech. And so, we can participate it. We don’t have to participate it. The bottom line is, we are basically out there doing something to help a member of Congress, we like what they do.

In my case, the way I look at it, is I do something. People like it? They want to get me re-elected. Now, part of getting me re-elected is I have to raise campaign funds to do that.

I’m not going to get any money from somebody who doesn’t like what I do. I’ll give you an example, my case. I was a pro-gun control advocate. The NRA tried to beat me every time. They didn’t give me any money. Why? They didn’t like what Marty Russo stood for. That’s okay. That’s their right. So, if I’m working for constituents in my district or if I’m helping a company that benefits my community, where do you think I’m going to raise money from? I’m not going to raise money from people who dislike me.

I’m going to raise money from people who like what I do and want to support me because they like what I stand for and they want me to get re-elected. So, this idea that lobbyists raise money, they’re not going to raise money for somebody who’s totally opposed to what they believe in.

We’ve interviewed lawmakers who say they absolutely need lobbyists. 2,000 page bills, they need to know all sides of the issue.

Well, I think I’ve covered that. And I believe all that. I mean, I think the most important thing the lobbyist can do is to furnish credible evidence to the lawmaker or policymaker who’s looking for it. And if you don’t give credible information, you can expect the next time you come around, you’re not going to get in that office. So, you either tell it straight, or forget about it.

And what I liked when I was a member, because I have that experience as a member, when I go in and talk to somebody about an issue, I will first tell them why I think our position is the right position. And then, the next thing I’ll do is tell them what the opposition says. Here’s what our opposition says, and here’s how I counter that argument. And hopefully, I’m giving him information that, ultimately, he makes a decision. Now, I’m doing the best I can to advocate on behalf of somebody in the American economy or some individual in America.

Something’s happening to that person or needs help, and that’s who I’m advocate, whether it’s a corporation, an individual, a not-for-profit — I’m advocating their position.

Are you selective?

Right. They have to fit in the practice areas we have. People come here because we have certain expertise.

What are those like, energy sector?

Well, we’re probably six or seven major areas. We do a lot of work for not-for-profits in getting federal dollars for certain things to be done for either a university or a hospital or a not-for-profit, which we think are wonderful things. And any day you want to talk to me about earmarks, I’ll be more than happy to tell you why they’re good things and not bad things.

We have a defense practice, a very extensive defense practice. We have an energy practice. We have a climate practice. We have a finance and tax practice. We have an international practice. We have an agriculture practice. And we have a telecommunication practice.

So, in those areas, if people have certain issues, they’ll look at different firms in town and see who they feel comfortable with who has the expertise to carry the argument. And that’s what happens.

The gap between spending for the wind industry and a single electric utilities company is quite large, and it would seem deep pockets provide a definite advantage in this fundraising scheme.

Well, let me tell you, no member of Congress is going to make a decision that affects his district, his state or his country because somebody gave him money. But, in what you’re talking about, how much money sectors of the economy are spending on lobbying, there is as much money on one side of the issue as there on the other side of the issue.

And you take some of the biggest industries that you talked about, they have enormous impact on jobs and what happens in a community, especially Louisiana and Texas.

So, if you’re going after oil and gas, the amount of jobs and the ripple effect in our economy is going to be severe in those two states. So, they’re going to come forward and tell you look, if you pass this bill with this language, here is the impact. Now, obviously, they’re going to spend a lot of money because it’s going to cost them a lot in profits, shareholder anger, but more importantly, jobs and the economic impact on the community. So, they’re going to fight for it.

Now, there’ll be the other side who’ll say, no, no, no, we don’t need that. We need more wind, more solar, more renewables. And here’s our argument. And they’ll spend a bunch of money. But it doesn’t matter how much you spend, that’s my point. If the bottom line issue is, this is good for the United States of America and you prevail, you’ve convinced enough members of Congress that that’s the right way to go. That individual or that issue’s going to carry out for you.

Now, while that’s happening, constituents are going to be coming forward and telling you what they think. And so, you put all that into the mix, and then you make a decision. So, lobbying provides an enormous benefit to everybody. People get educated. Listen, I came here, I was a prosecutor. You want to talk to me about criminal law? I could help you. You want to talk to me about energy?

I didn’t know much about energy. I’m on the commerce committee, I had to learn about energy, telecommunication. So, the bottom line is, for me to get up to speed, I have to hear from the experts.

Experts pay people to write briefs, to write articles, to write memos. And you have to get your staff and look at it and try to come up with the best solution you can. It doesn’t mean that, because they spent 10 million and these guys spent 4 million and this guy spent 20 million — but, the bottom line for me, what’s important to my constituents, my state, my country.

Sometimes, I’ll be on the losing side. Does that mean these guys are the bad guys and only these are the good guys ’cause I was on the losing side?

No, I didn’t prevail. I couldn’t convince enough people to buy my argument. And that’s what people lose — I think the perspective that’s lost here is if people spend 10 million and win, and the other side spends 2 million and loses, that that money made the difference. They don’t talk about the story where the guy who spends 2 million wins and the guy who spent 20 million loses.

Which happens more often?

I think it’s a combination. It depends on the issue. I really believe, in the past, renewables didn’t have a big bunch of supporters in the Congress.

They’re not going to win very much because people who are running the show who had the power didn’t agree with renewables. They were protecting what they thought was the status quo, and that’s what they thought was best for the country. Well, all of a sudden, you have different policymakers in Washington who happen to believe renewables are important.

They’re more important than fossil fuels. So, all of a sudden, the renewables are winning. And they don’t have that much money. But they’re winning because the mindset in Washington today is totally different than it was eight years ago.

Totally different than it was 15 years ago.

Why do you think renewables are winning?

Well, look at all the tax credit advantages given to wind, solar and biofuels. This administration and the Congress as a whole are pushing it. You take Senator [Boxer]. Senator Boxer has made a major impact as a [unintelligible] on what’s happening, because she believes in renewables. She comes from a state where they’re choking and fossil fuels is not helping them.

Now, look, we have to do something between now and when renewables come online. So, in the past, we haven’t given renewables enough incentives in the tax code. People would say, that’s a special interest. Lobbyists are pushing the special interest for, but everything we do in the tax code, and I was on the committee almost 14 years, we put something in there to encourage certain activity.

We now have the votes to encourage that activity. So, they may not win all their battles, but compared to what they were winning before, they’re big time winners.

And I think that’s going to continue to happen, because policymakers are now convinced that there is a climate problem. There wasn’t that consensus before. So, now, you have the President going to Copenhagen. You have the Speaker going to Copenhagen. We realize that there is a long-term problem. And so, that issue is going to be up front.

It’s going to carry more times than it will lose. And I guarantee you, the oil industry is spending a heck of a lot more money than the renewables are spending.

And the renewables are winning. Why? Because they have now convinced the members of Congress, at least the majority of them, that if we don’t do something about climate change, this country as we know it today or the planet as we know it today isn’t going to be what it is. My left cheek is getting numb.

If money has no impact, why do you support the Fair Elections Now, Act?

One reason, is the perception that members of Congress are influenced by that money. As a former member and someone who loves the institution, it pains me to see that all the time, because I’ve been around the most conservative members. I’ve been around the most liberal members. They didn’t come here to screw things up.

They come here from a point of view, elected from a district that wants them to push what they talked about in their campaign. And so, basically, that’s why they’re here.

Now, the unfortunate part of it is, in order to stay here, you have to raise money to get elected. That’s the problem. So, why I support public financing is because I would like someday where people say, what, the Congressman voted X because they convinced him. It was the right issue, and there was no money involved. I’d love to see that day.

Because I think people who go there are the most honorable people you’ll ever come across. They’re the hardest workers I’ve been around. And they really care.

Now, I may not agree what some of the people vote. But that has nothing to do with the respect I have for the work members of Congress and the White House do for this country. And I think the unfortunate criticism that’s leveled is making it more and more difficult for us to function properly. Now, I’m not against 24/7 news, but the bottom line is, when members of Congress have to take a stand and then constantly getting criticized for saying, well the reason they did that is because they got money.

I’d love some day for you to say, the reason they did it, because what? They believed in the issue. Which I believe is what they really do in the end, anyway. If you’re a conservative, you’re not going to be for gun control. And if you’re a liberal, you’re not going to be for distributing handguns to ten-year-old kids, right? We know where they’re coming from. So, when you go to Congress or you get into public office, you have certain set views that you believe in. And that’s why people elect you. No one expects you to change those views.

But, there are those gray areas where you don’t have solid positions and you really want to learn. And so that’s where the lobbyists play a bigger role. But on issues like, shall I go say, if you want to cut the deficit, for some reason, Republicans get the credit for it. Democrats don’t. But everyone’s trying to cut the deficit, I hope. Someday soon. Anyway. It was fun.

‍