Tom Perriello (U.S. Representative, VA)

Why’d you run? What brings you to Washington?

Well, this is one of those times where America needs to reinvent its competitive advantage for a new century. And that’s got to mean getting on top of the new energy sector, finding ways to bring down health care cost. Right now, the middle class is really at the end of a 20-year strain on its ability to support families.

And we have to find a new way to do that here in this country. And we always have in the past. And we will again.

Having voted for the health care bill, it’s said that you’ll have quite a stiff competition.

Well, there are more important things than getting reelected. And that’s producing results for the people of my district and for this country. Too often, people come up here and take the risk-averse strategy of keeping their head down, and that’s why nothing gets done up here.

People elected us to do things differently, and I think having the courage to take on issues like energy independence that both parties have known we’ve needed to do for a generation. And we’re doing it in a way that’s bold. But it’s also pragmatic. It’s a market-based, profit-motive-oriented approach. So, you can be transformational and pragmatic at the same time. And I think that’s the middle ground we’re trying to hit.

Why do you suppose we haven’t answered the challenge for energy?

Well, I think a lot of it has to do with the sort of special interest or corporate capture of government. Those who make money under the current system are often able to protect that status quo through our political process, instead of the kind of capitalism and innovation that makes this country great, which is to think not about what the jobs were 20 years ago, but what the jobs could be 20 years from now.

We’re getting out-competed by countries that are daring to take their countries where they need to be two decades from now. Instead, we’re stuck, because of the way money influences our politics on both sides that makes it very easy to come up with something that sounds good in a 30 second TV spot, instead of the kind of solutions that are going to make this country safe for the next 30 years.

What’s your take on how the special interests have found ways to keep the status quo going?

Well, there’ s a lot of money in politics. I don’t take money from lobbyists or corporate packs. And not only does that mean I’m not influenced by those dollars, it also means that in the evening, when other people are sometimes spending their time on that is some of the space I get to really do real policy work.

So I think what we’re looking at here is a moment where we have to be willing to think about bold ideas that are outside the box. And I think what these interest groups can do is narrow that. I mean, you see, in something like the health care debate right now, certain interest groups have gone up with $200,000 worth of negative ad buys about it.

And to be able to describe a really good health care plan may take you 30 minutes. To destroy it takes 30 seconds. And this is the imbalance in our debate. And money driving those 30-second spots exacerbates that imbalance. I think the insurance companies may have put that guy up, too.

Has the need to fundraise been a hassle for you?

Well, as a younger member of congress, I’m trying to use internet and small-donor fundraising in a way that we really couldn’t do a generation ago that allows you, in a low cost way, to reach thousands and thousands of your constituents and not just the typical old way, which is to spend a lot of time reaching a small number of people. So, I think technology can help.

But I also think we need people to understand why, in the middle of a busy day, when they’re working two shifts just to try to support their family, they might want to take 30 minutes out to follow what’s going on politically.

To write that letter up to us or put in a call, and maybe even write a check. What the corporations understand, what the special interests understand, is their return on an investment dollar in lobbying is even higher than a return on their R&D investment dollar. And that’s part of the problem in the system. Citizens need to understand that same thing and take seriously their civic duty to engage. So, I think when we can do that we reach a new place. But it’s not just a matter of going to people and asking them for their money. It has to be about asking them for their ideas. About making them feel like they have some ownership over government; that it is a reflection of them as the demos.

So, in that sense, when we engage people in the decision-making process and the input process, they’re more likely to engage with us when it comes to election time. And I think that’s the right way for it to work.

Why is it you’re supporting the Fair Election Now Act?

Well, for a democracy to function well, it has to belong to the people. And it can’t just belong to a small number of people or to the corporate interests or special interests. This really has to be a level playing field where each person has one vote. And in our system, that gets choked out.

I think we’ve seen lately a real threat, not only to the common good of this country, but even to capitalism itself through the corporate capture of government with things like the bailout process. This was not government going up to Wall Street and saying, please let us bail you out. It was Wall Street coming to Washington and saying, you must bail us out.

Well, then you get into a position where, all of a sudden, we, as citizens own some of these companies. So, suddenly things that shouldn’t have been our business, like CEO bonuses, have to become our business because it’s tax dollars. What does that mean?

That means that that corporate influence in both parties through the financial sector really takes us down a path where we don’t want to go. And I think that threat’s coming from there, rather than what some believe, which is that it’s coming from an ideological space.

With respect to the Fair Election Now Act, a lot of the proponents of that kind of electoral reform are anticipating some resistance from the incumbents. Why would that be?

Well, I find it hard to believe that anyone sitting in this job wouldn’t want the Fair Elections Now Act. Given the number of times you have to ask your friends for money, your neighbors for money, you would think there’d be so much interest in finding a different way to do this that allows us to focus on policy and take some of that burden off.

So it seems to me like something incumbents should want. But obviously, one of the biggest advantages in our system is when you have that war chest that you’ve saved up through various election cycles, when you have that relationship to the corporate PACs or what have you.

So there are those advantages of incumbency. But I think we do need to look broadly at a whole range of things to revitalize our democracy. I think we can look at the length of terms, the way we finance campaigns, the way we redistrict districts. All of these are part of revitalizing our democracy. But one thing we should be able to do that just makes sense is this Fair Elections Now Act, because it’s so clearly giving power back to the people.

It’s rewarding those politicians that go out and make the case. It’s taking that person that can give 50 bucks or 100 bucks and put them on a level playing field with the people that can drop five figures and six figures through various channels.

So, this is what our democracy should be about. Whether you’re from the right or the left, both can see that influence of big money and the way that it’s really corrupted our system. I used to live and work in West Africa and people would give politicians money and get something in return and we called it corruption. Here, we call it campaign finance. It’s just broken, and we’ve got to fix it. You’re watching the count?

In terms of your not taking money from PACs or lobbyists, has that freed you up?

It can’t be worse than what we have now, I think. We’ve got to be moving in that direction where there’s more economic incentive. I think you’ve seen this with internet fundraising already, just think about the cost it used to take to go and reach 10,000 donors who might give you $10 each, as opposed to going to 100 donors that will give you $1,000 each. Well, you’re going to go to those 100 donors — and I hope I got the math right on that. But the point is that just in terms of investment of time, you have to go to those big donors under the old system.

With the internet, where you can reach thousands at the same time, you’ve reduced that cost to do it. So, all of a sudden, it’s efficient. With this system, what we would be doing is further rewarding the idea of going out to everyday voters and trying to build your support from there. And I think that’s going to really help a lot more voices come into the process. And not just the people that the establishment has chosen. And it’s not just, I think, whether it’s the Republican or the Democrat that wins in the election. It’s often in the primary races, where someone might never get into politics in the first place because they know that someone else has the deep pockets or is so connected to these various interests that have deep pockets.

So, they never bother to get into politics. Well, a lot of folks, good people, who would be great members of Congress, member of a board of supervisors could come into that if they felt like there was a different system. So, I think this isn’t just about the competition between parties or between incumbents and challengers. It’s the kind of people that might want to step into the game. And I think we can shake that up a bit.

With regard to energy policy, do you see what’s going on with that legislation as an example for the need of Fair Election Now Act and public funding?

Well, the interesting thing about the energy bill is that it’s actually a Republican idea, cap and trade. It was a great program created by the first President Bush to solve the acid rain problem. One of the most efficient capitalist-oriented solutions to an environmental problem we’ve ever seen. McCain and others introduced it for the climate change context. And then the second that we endorsed it as a good idea, it not only became bad, because the Democrats were associated, but it had to be the worst thing on earth. So, I think there are a couple of things going on here.

One is the partisanship that says, we can’t allow the other side to have a victory on anything, even if it’s right for this country. But it’s also, I think, that money and politics, where there are winners and losers under this system. And the losers, in some cases, are the people that are entrenched now. The winners are those industries of the future that we have to get ahead on in order to create those new middle-class jobs for the future. So, you have this status quo bias that is the antithesis of the innovation that capitalism and that America is based on. So you have this sick way in which the corporate influence gets in the way of capitalism more than the political process does.

So, if you put those two things together, a very toxic partisan political environment with that money in politics and the ability to fund millions in negative ads with false information, you stand in the way of something that could make this country so great right now, in terms of job creation and in terms of national security. In terms of saying, we’re sick of sending our hard-earned dollars to petro dictators that hate this country.

‍