Warren Rudman (Former U.S. Senator, NH)

If you had to pick the most important reason for you why public funding of federal elections is needed, what would it be?

There’s an overwhelming cynicism of the American people in their government. It’s caused by a lot of reasons, but I think one of the principle reasons is a feeling that the Congress has been corrupted by the special interest money.

Now, personally, I’ve never really believed that that was so. But the problem is that the American people overwhelmingly think it’s so, and in the reality of politics in this country, it is perception as much as reality which makes things happen or not happen. And if you’re going to get a Congress to do the kinds of things that need to be done, and there are many major problems in this country, whether it be Social Security, the environment, global warming, race relations, voting, all of those things.

If you’re going to make those kind of hard decisions, you need to have an overwhelming support of the American people, and the integrity of the institution that’s making those kinds of decisions. And that’s the principle reason why I’ve reluctantly come to public financing, which I always described as the best of a bunch of bad options.

Previous attempts at campaign finance reform have been ineffective, in your opinion?

Well, I don’t think it’s ineffective or circumvented. I just believe that the vested interested within the Congress and within special interests have very effectively opposed them. And it’s my experience that for things to happen in this country, it sometimes takes a long time. You have to build public support.

A good example of what’s happening today is the Iraq War. The Iraq War originally was overwhelmingly supported by the American people. Now, it’s overwhelmingly opposed to it. And you see a shift in the Congress, including amongst Republicans, as to their views on that war. And this is one of those issues that’s going to take the American people to get really vocal about, so their elected representatives recognize that they’re going to have to do it. And that time will come.

Will it come this year or next year? I don’t know. But, it will come.

How has the current system influenced policy-making?

Oh, I think it has. I think the enormous access that special interests have to members of Congress has in a way given them an unfair advantage over the [body politic] in general. And that is why you see some legislation, which doesn’t make much sense from the point of view of the general good, being adopted.

This is what special interests, lobbying, and money are all about. Obviously, everyone in this country has a right to petition their government for things that they want. That’s perfectly proper. Unfortunately, it’s not a level playing field. The field is titled.

How is the current leadership addressing problems that you’ve mentioned?

Well, I think one of the problems with the current system, which overwhelmingly favors incumbents, is that there are a lot of very good, talented, decent people in the country that have toyed with the idea of running for higher public office at the national level and the state level.

And in many cases, have been discouraged because of the enormous amount of money that has to be raised. I mean, it is now in the billions, for Senate, House, and Presidential elections in the ’08 year. I mean, that’s unacceptable, and I think it’s unconscionable.

Do you think that our current campaign finance system threatens democracy?

I think the continuation of the present system will continue to erode what confidence is left in the government by the America people.

In your long public service, how was the necessity of fundraising for you in general?

Well, I was fortunate in coming from a state that still believes in retail politics. New Hampshire is a state of about a million people, two Congressional districts. You could literally get out there — as the Presidential candidates do every four years — and truly meet a lot of people. And probably run a camping for a lot less than in many parts of the country.

However, being in the Senate and watching my colleagues from some of the larger states, and the kind of money they had to raise, and how they had to raise it, and the enormous effort they had to put into it, and the times that I was called upon to go to fundraisers to help people, it became very apparent to me that the burdens of raising money were really overwhelming and really were taking away from time that could be better spent dealing with issues, rather than dealing with raising money.

Did you think there are situations were members of Congress may feel conflicted when a bill is coming up?

It was never a problem for me. But I look at it a little differently. I mean, let’s look at the whole issue of the automotive industry, and increasing mileage. It’s no surprise to me that senators and congressmen from places like Michigan, Indiana, and Ohio, who are heavily supported by the automobile industry, are very much on their side.

But that shouldn’t surprise anyone. That’s not just a question of money, it’s a question of who their constituents are. And if a large number of your constituents are represented by labor unions for the automobile workers, by lobbyists representing the automobile companies, campaign financing aside, it’s not surprising.

Being-from being from New Hampshire, we don’t have that kind of concentration of industry of one particular interest. If there was one lobby in New Hampshire that was probably the most powerful, in my view, it was the environmental lobby. And that’s something I didn’t have a problem with, because I agree with them.

What percent of your time did you have to spend fundraising?

Relatively small, in my case. I really didn’t do very much fundraising at all. We did a lot of direct mail. We had a lot of very strong supporters who contributed to our campaign. I had many friends throughout the country that contributed to the campaign. Far different from someone from, say, New York, or New Jersey, or California, Florida. That is a totally different regimen of fundraising.

Why are most members of Congress opposed to the idea of public financing?

Well, I think they are two reasons. Number one I think the status quo has shown that incumbency is an overwhelming advantage, and public financing would level that playing field. So, I think from a personal, selfish point of view — which after all, shouldn’t surprise anyone — people are concerned that their seats in the House or the Senate, but particularly the House might become more vulnerable if they had opposition that could at least compete with them.

Maybe not raise as much money, but at least compete. And we know that you don’t have to raise as much money to win an election, you just have to be competitive. I think that’s the-the major reason that incumbents see it as jeopardizing their chances for reelection. Not surprising. However, there are a number of members of Congress who recognize that that was a very short-sighted view, and that in reality, in order to restore confidence in the Congress itself, which is now around about 25%, which is something horrible, that there has to be a change in many things, including the system of financing elections.

Opponents say public financing of elections is a waste of taxpayer money. What’s your take on that?

Well, I don’t want to be too harsh, but, but when people call it “welfare for politicians,” I mean, that’s a nice-sounding phrase, but it really isn’t. We’re talking about a relatively small amount of money from the national budget, to take specially interests totally out of it. Obviously, people who strongly oppose it like the system just the way it is, for reasons I’ve already discussed. But I don’t think that’s an-that an accurate or even a fair accusation.

I think that those who make that accusation are really protecting their own guys.

Do you think there could be a savings, in the long run?

Oh, I think that if you had a system of public financing, I think the net would be in the positive, not the negative side.

Publicly financed elections have been road-tested in Arizona and Maine. Do you think there’s enough success to make it a viable reform?

Yeah. I think that Maine and Arizona — which I’m very familiar with — are outstanding examples of success. One of the reasons the Presidential public financing hasn’t worked is, frankly, the money that’s been available, the limits that have been set, are just too low. People aren’t able to do it in the country, where it originally was set.

I mean, if you look at Arizona, if you look at Maine, and you talk to people there — which I have — they are very satisfied with it. And they like it. And you’ve got people coming into public life in those states that otherwise might not have, who represent a wide diversity of the American population, which is precisely what you want in our representative form of government.

What can the average citizen do?

One thing that the American people just don’t get is that the lobbyists that the members of Congress pay the most attention to are the average citizens. When I would have a group of New Hampshire citizens come to Washington to talk about the environment, to talk about education, to talk about mental health, to talk about defense policy, foreign policy, they would get a lot more of my time and my staff’s time than lobbyists who represented the very same interests.

Either pro or con. The best thing the American people can do to make this happen is, every time they have an opportunity to speak or write to their member of Congress, or one of their two United States Senators, they ought to say, “Listen, I just want you to know that I believe that the system of public financing of elections ought to be adopted.”

If enough people do that, then the calculus will change. I have no-no doubt about that whatsoever, none.

Do you think the current electoral system may have contributed to foreign policy problems?

I don’t really make that connection. I think that many of the major foreign policy mistakes we have our policy errors of gross misjudgments by people who really didn’t understand the long-range implications of the policies that they were going to implement. I think we’ve seen that come to pass certainly in Iraq, and in the whole Middle East. But, I don’t think that the campaign financing as such has.

Now, energy policy, there’s not question that the power of many of the energy companies has been brought to bear on Congress, as has the pharmaceutical industry and many other industries. And all I’m saying is, we ought to have a more level playing field.

Is there any connection between Chevron and Mobil and the war?

No, I don’t. I don’t there’s a connection with our foreign policy, and I totally reject anybody’s contention that what’s going on to day in the Middle East — in Iraq — was about oil. I don’t think it was. I think over the long term, that will be proven. I think the Iraqis will control their own oil, and they’ll sell it to the highest bidder.

So, I don’t make that connection. I do make the connection in energy policy and health policy. I think there are strong connections to be made there.

‍