From: [XA U 20] at [forsythe.stanford.edu] (June Genis)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: testimony of Libertarian Party, House Subcommittee on Elections (long)
Date: 17 Jun 1993 18:30:01 -0700
Prepared Statement of
Stuart Reges
National Director
Libertarian Party
before the
House Subcommittee on Elections
June 17, 1993
Introduction
------------
Thank you for inviting us to testify on this important subject. I
would like to begin by saying a few words about the Libertarian Party.
Our party was formed over 21 years ago and we have been involved in
local and national politics ever since. In each of the past five
presidential elections our candidate received the highest vote totals
for any third party candidate. Our vote totals were exceeded by the
two major parties and by independents Eugene McCarthy, John Anderson
and Ross Perot, but otherwise we have maintained our status as
America's third largest party.
Last year our presidential vote total of 291 thousand was somewhat
disappointing, but the fact that we kept approximately the same
percentage of the third party vote indicates to us that Ross Perot was
taking away votes from all third party candidates. Over one million
people voted for one of our candidates for US Senate in the twenty
states where we ran campaigns, which is a new high for us and is a
feat that hasn't been equaled by a third party since 1914. Our
candidate for Senate in Georgia forced a runoff by preventing either
major party candidate from obtaining a majority. We also ran over
one-hundred candidates for US House and over five-hundred candidates
for state and local office last year.
Our national membership has been growing steadily in recent years and
we currently have active chapters in all fifty states and the District
of Columbia. We have won eight state legislative elections, which is
the most for any third party since the Socialist Party. Over fifty
members of our party currently hold elected office including four
members of the New Hampshire House and several city council members.
We believe we represent the concerns of citizens who are tired of big
government and think it's time to return to the American tradition of
limited government and personal responsibility. Some people consider
our positions radical, but most find our perspective interesting when
we are allowed to speak, which is the main subject I intend to address
here today.
It is probably no great surprise that our party opposes the entire
system of public funding of campaigns. As a libertarian I would
certainly rather be testifying today in support of the repeal of the
Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971. But that is not the subject of
this hearing and I will, therefore, tell you what we think you should
do to improve the existing system.
What Happened in 1992
---------------------
In September of 1992 we were informed by the Commission on
Presidential Debates that our presidential candidate, Andre Marrou,
would not be included in the presidential debates. Their reason was
not ballot access, because we were on all fifty state ballots plus the
District of Columbia. Their stated reasons were that Andre Marrou did
not have sufficient standing in the polls and his coverage in the
national media indicated that he did not have a realistic chance of
winning the election.
In fact, in those communities where we were covered by the media and
included in the polls, we did quite well. Independent polls done by
Inc Magazine, Compuserve and U Magazine (a national publication for
college students) placed Andre Marrou in the 5-10% range.
On October 1st, just 10 days before the first debate, Ross Perot
announced that he was reentering the race. Two days later the Bush
and Clinton campaigns announced that they wanted Perot included in the
debates. This fact was reported in the national media and as far as
most Americans were concerned, the issue was settled.
But the Commission on Presidential Debates did not, in fact, make
their decision about Perot for another six days. Their problem was
that Perot was polling in the single digit range and virtually all of
the national media coverage was about how he had no realistic chance
of winning the election. The headlines in the New York Times were "A
Tremor Now, Not a Groundswell" (10/2), "Impact of Perot on Race So Far
is Termed Scant" (10/4), and "Poll Finds Hostility to Perot And No
Basic Shift in Race" (10/6). The pundits they quoted said he was "at
best a footnote" (10/3) and was running not to win but "to gain
attention" (10/2).
The problem for the Commission was that by their own stated criteria
Perot should have been excluded. As USA Today reported on October
7th:
In Washington...officials wrangled over how to include
Perot in the presidential debates that begin Sunday.
He is likely to be invited. But lawyers for the
bipartisan debate commission haven't worked out how to
do it while excluding candidates such as Libertarian
Andre Marrou, the other name on all ballots.
This little drama played itself out mostly unseen by the American
public because most of the major media chose not to cover the story.
It was discussed briefly on the MacNeil/Lehrer News Hour and a CNN
roundtable discussion where pundits were heard to say that the
Commission should allow Perot in because he was on all fifty state
ballots. Only commentators David Gergen and Robert Novak were
informed enough to point out that Libertarian candidate Andre Marrou
also met that standard.
The Commission did finally decide on October 9th to allow Perot to
participate, just two days before the debate took place. They
indicated that they were allowing him in based on his standing prior
to withdrawing from the race.
An important aspect of this coverage is that the media don't seem to
believe that the commission is nonpartisan, as they claim to be.
Literally every media source that I explored in researching my
testimony incorrectly referred to them as bipartisan. The mistake was
in the USA Today article quoted above (10/7), the New York Times
(10/3), the Washington Post (10/3 and 10/4), and even this month's
issue of Campaigns&Elections (April/May '93).
The fact that this mistake could be made by the authors of these
articles and their editors, who are presumably experts on Washington
politics, clearly indicates that the commission is perceived by the
media to be controlled by the two major parties.
Anyone who doesn't understand the significance of the distinction
between "nonpartisan" and "bipartisan" is trapped in a two-party
mindset. Consider, for example, the difference between "nonsexual"
and "bisexual." In the other chamber Senator Nunn is holding hearings
in which that distinction might mean the difference between having a
military career and being dishonorably discharged.
These incidents raise troubling questions about the Commission on
Presidential Debates. Are they truly an objective nonpartisan
organization, or are they a bipartisan tool of the major parties? Did
they treat us fairly last year or was there a deliberate attempt to
exclude us from the debates?
I don't claim to know the answers to these questions, and I don't
believe that this committee has the time or the resources to answer
them either. But to me the questions don't have to be answered to
know that something went wrong in 1992. If the media is correct in
their perceptions, then I think the commission has many things to
answer for. If not, then one has to question the commission's
decision to rely so heavily on the media's opinion in deciding which
candidates to include in the debate.
My own conclusion from all of this is that the Commission is wrong to
place so much emphasis on media coverage. Reporters, editors and
bureau chiefs are just as fallible as the rest of us, so giving them
the weighty responsibility of deciding who to include in the debates
was the real mistake in 1992.
Nothing proves this point more clearly than Ross Perot's meteoric rise
after the first debate. The New York Times/CBS Poll showed Perot
support at 7% before the debate and 18% after. Perot's performance
made it clear that having a chance of winning the election and being
included in the debates is a kind of chicken-and-egg situation. If a
candidate is excluded because he is perceived as having no chance of
winning, he will almost certainly be perceived as having no chance of
winning. But if a candidate is included, he can suddenly be perceived
as having a chance of winning even if he did not seem like a viable
candidate beforehand. Thus, the decision to include or exclude based
on whether the candidate is perceived as having a chance of winning
becomes a kind of self-fulfilling prophesy.
Whether to Mandate Debates
--------------------------
I was interested to see that in considering S.3, the campaign finance
reform bill, the Senate considered the question of whether
Congressional candidates who accept federal money for their campaigns
should be required to participate in debates. When that amendment was
proposed, Senator McConnell objected that it was unconstitutional
because the first amendment guarantees the right not to speak if one
chooses to remain silent.
We libertarians are staunch defenders of the first amendment. We
would, for example, completely oppose requiring candidates like Ross
Perot who fund their campaigns with private money to participate in
debates. But I believe Senator McConnell misses the point. If a
candidate accepts federal money, is it reasonable to set some
expectations in return?
To try to understand this better, I thought of two different extreme
cases. Suppose Congress decided that all those who accept federal
money in the form of welfare should be required to make a public
statement about why they need the money and how they plan to work
their way out of poverty. I don't know if such a provision violates
the first amendment, but it at least violates a sense of compassion
and respect for privacy.
At the other extreme, consider the case of a scientist who has been
given a research grant who is required to write up his results and
make them public. Can such a scientist claim the protections of the
first amendment to argue that he should be allowed to stay silent? If
so, then Congress has no way to guarantee that the results of the
research they fund will be disseminated for the public good.
I think the real answer to the question of whether it is appropriate
for Congress to require candidates who accept federal campaign support
to participate in debates boils down to the question of whether such
funds are more like an entitlement or more like a grant. When I think
about country club members like Bill Clinton and George Bush being
given a check for 55.2 million dollars to fund their campaigns, it
doesn't take me long to answer that question. I suspect the American
people would readily agree with my answer that it is much more like a
grant that carries with it a reasonable set of requirements.
Remember that we oppose the entire concept of federal funding of
campaigns. We, therefore, have no problem with the idea that a
candidate who accepts such money has a great responsibility to the
citizens who provided those funds, including the responsibility to
debate all viable challengers.
The Effect of Including Third Party Candidates
----------------------------------------------
I don't believe I have to convince the members of this subcommittee
that the American people are fed up with politics as usual and don't
like the way presidential campaigns are run these days. We're not
just talking about 1992 here, because people have become increasingly
concerned about the quality of presidential races for at least the
last three elections.
I submit that Congress bears some of the responsibility. One of the
unintended consequences of public funding of presidential races is
that it has allowed the major candidates to avoid issues and run
campaigns based on innuendo and personal attacks. While a candidate
might be able to win votes without taking a stand on specific issues,
fund raising places much greater demands on a candidate. Citizens are
not usually willing to fork over their hard-earned money without some
specific guarantees about what they will get in return. By insulating
candidates from the need to fund raise, you insulate them from the
need to directly address issues.
It is not surprising, then, that the most specific statements are made
during the primary season, when fund raising can be all important. In
1992, George Bush did not have a serious challenger in Pat Buchanan,
so he could afford to take few specific stands. Bill Clinton, on the
other hand, had to make specific promises to the gay community and
others to raise enough funds to beat the Democrat who won the New
Hampshire primary, Paul Tsongas.
The competition that fund raising engenders leads naturally to a
delineation of candidates on specific issues rather than the endless
chatter about character and trust that Americans are so tired of
hearing. As I've said twice already, we'd much rather have you
eliminate federal funding so that we can return to this kind of
competition. Since that obviously is not going to happen, I think you
should feel a responsibility to compensate for this flaw in the
current system by trying to force candidates who accept federal funds
to address the issues.
One of the best ways to produce this outcome is to require such
candidates to debate, and to include third-party and independent
candidates in the debates. From the Socialist Party to the People's
Party to the Prohibition Party, the traditional role of third parties
in this country has been to focus on issues not being addressed by the
major parties. Third parties and independents are usually more in
touch with the immediate concerns of the American public and are
willing to say what the major candidates are often afraid to say.
This point is most clearly proven by noticing the effect Ross Perot
had on the 1992 election. I don't think anyone questions the fact
that Perot transformed what might have been dull and frustrating
wrangling over "the character thing" into a meaningful debate about
the issues of concern to most Americans. Perot got his 19% of the
popular vote because he talked about the issues that Americans wanted
to hear addressed, and he in turn forced Clinton and Bush to address
those issues.
Some might argue that Perot is different because he is not as flaky as
some of the third party presidential candidates. My response to that
is that flakes don't get on all fifty state ballots, particularly
given the current state of ballot access laws. We made fifty-state
ballot status because we connect with a significant number of people
in this country and are bold enough to take specific stands on the
issues of concern to them.
In New Hampshire where the Libertarian Party is more regularly covered
by the local media our gubernatorial candidate, Miriam Luce, was
included in the debates televised throughout the state. She did not
turn out to be flaky or extraneous. As with Perot, she managed to
focus the debate on issues by taking specific stands. If you doubt my
characterization, check with New Hampshire Congressman Zeliff who also
debated his Libertarian challenger in 1992.
Far from being a distraction, inclusion of third party candidates
would enliven the debates and make them much more valuable to the
American people. Most of these people will probably choose not to
vote for the third party candidates they hear, but they will be glad
the third parties were in the debates to focus them more on the
pressing issues of the day.
Criteria for Inclusion
----------------------
I have already expressed some of my concerns about using media
coverage to decide inclusion in debates. Let me mention one
additional concern. One of the greatest challenges for the media is
to maintain an objective distance from the political process. The
media should observe and report on politics, not participate in it.
As a result, I think it would be absolutely inappropriate for Congress
to promulgate a standard that would effectively allow the media to
decide who participates in presidential debates. As was obvious with
Perot, the decision to include or not include a candidate can greatly
influence an election. The founding fathers understood very well the
need to keep a wall of separation between the press and the
government, and this Congress should not stray from the example they
set.
This is not to say that private groups like the Commission on
Presidential Debates cannot sponsor debates where the opinion of the
media is used to determine inclusion. There is no reason we must have
only one set of debates. The Commission should be allowed to apply
whatever criteria they want, but any debates mandated by Congress
should apply whatever criteria Congress deems most appropriate, even
if that means a different group ends up sponsoring those debates.
As for polls, our greatest concern is that any such poll in advance of
a debate is more a measure of media coverage than voter sentiment.
Our party, like all third parties, operates at a much more grass-roots
level. Our almost universal experience is that when we have the
opportunity to present our ideas, we are well received. Our following
among such grass-
roots media as computer bulletin boards and radio talk shows is much
higher than in the general population who find out about politics
mostly through the national media. Thus, relying on a poll still, in
effect, means relying on the national media. Even Ross Perot was
polling at 7% in the days before he was allowed to speak for himself
in the first presidential debate. Given the chance to get his message
out, though, he managed to grow steadily in the polls towards his 19%
vote total.
If a poll is to be used, we would at least hope that it would be
conducted by an independent agency and would be presented fairly to
participants. For example, several libertarians were upset at
pollsters in 1992 who asked them which of the three candidates they
intended to vote for. When they replied that they were voting for the
fourth candidate on all fifty ballots, they were frustrated to find
their vote most often recorded as "undecided."
From my earlier comments, it is clear that I place a greater emphasis
on ballot access. I do not think I am unusual in that regard. In my
job I talk to a great number of people with a wide variety of
political beliefs and I have been amazed to find how many Americans
seem to think that we deserved to be in the debates given that we were
on the ballot in all fifty states. No matter how much they disagree
with our positions, they agree that we should have had an opportunity
to speak.
I believe that Ross Perot's high-profile campaign made people more
aware of just what an accomplishment full ballot status represents.
In this century, only eight candidates have made it on all ballots
with presidential electors: three socialists, John Anderson in 1980,
Lenora Fulani in 1988, Ross Perot in 1992, and two Libertarian Party
candidates, Ed Clark in 1980 and Andre Marrou in 1992. Even such
well-known candidates as Teddy Roosevelt and George Wallace missed
getting on all the ballots, Roosevelt in Oklahoma and Wallace in DC.
Quite frankly, it is inconceivable to me that a candidate who has
managed to get on all the ballots would be denied the opportunity to
debate. As the person who coordinated just the DC petition drive, I
can tell you from firsthand experience that it took a monumental
effort on our part. No frivolous or flaky candidate would have the
money, the organization, the dedicated volunteers and the willing
voters necessary to complete such a task.
Although I do think full ballot status should be enough to qualify for
the debates, I'm not necessarily suggesting that as the best standard
to use. Another measure of a candidate's strength is fund raising,
and I think that probably the best way to gauge the viability of a
candidate is to combine ballot access and fund raising, as Congressman
Penny has done in his bill.
We are highly supportive of Congressman Penny's proposed debates bill.
We think it offers a fair and equitable balance between ballot access
and fund raising. I myself am particularly impressed that, with no
prompting from us, he has created a bill that does not violate
libertarian principles, which is a rare event in Congress these days.
The greatest objection I have heard to Congressman Penny's bill is the
prospect that somehow it would lead to chaotic debates with dozens of
candidates. In fact, the ballot access restrictions alone should be
enough to preclude such an outcome. According to ballot access expert
Richard Winger, before 1992 there wasn't a presidential election in
this century where more than four candidates made it on forty or more
state ballots. Five candidates would have qualified in 1992: George
Bush, Bill Clinton, Lenora Fulani, Andre Marrou and Ross Perot.
Let me throw out one idea that is not in Congressman Penny's bill.
One problem with Congressman Penny's requirement that a candidate be
on forty ballots is that it would allow a candidate to skip ten very
large states. Another way to approach this would be to express the
requirement in terms of electoral votes. C-SPAN, for example, in
deciding what candidates to invite to their third party debate chose
to include those who had a "numerical" chance of winning, meaning that
the sum of the electoral votes for the states on which they were on
the ballot was greater than or equal to the 270 votes needed to win.
Only our candidate, Andre Marrou, and the New Alliance Party
candidate, Lenora Fulani, met that standard.
We consider the C-SPAN approach a very reasonable one, because it
excludes in a quite straightforward way all and only those candidates
who have no realistic chance of winning the election.
The key point is that no matter what criteria you set, as long as you
make it possible for us to establish our seriousness through the kind
of one-on-one grass-roots politics that we do so well, we will meet
that standard. If that means getting on all fifty ballots, we will
get on all fifty ballots. If that means qualifying for matching
funds, we will qualify for matching funds. If it means doing both, we
will have a difficult time, but even then I am sure that we would
succeed.
I can say this with confidence because I know that my fellow
libertarians feel as I do that if only we had the chance to get our
message to the average voter, we could raise the level of the debate
and begin addressing the issues that are of such great concern to us.
Conclusion
----------
I hope that I have given you a clearer picture of our concerns. I
also hope that I have helped to convince you that inclusion of third
party candidates has the potential to improve the quality of the
presidential debates and to compensate for some of the negative
results of public financing of presidential campaigns.
As a last example, I'll invoke the memory of the most legendary of all
American debates and the greatest of all third party American
candidates. In 1858 Abraham Lincoln ran for Senate under a new party
banner with a highly partisan press. I believe he would have felt
highly frustrated at the prospect that media bureau chiefs would be
able to decide his political fate and that timid major party
candidates would be able to hide behind the comfortable shield of
public financing to avoid debating him. We might never have had the
"house divided" speech, the Lincoln-Douglas debates or the Republican
Party if we had in place our current system.
I hope that you pass Congressman Penny's bill or a similar plan that
guarantees that those who fund their campaigns with the hard-earned
money of American citizens agree to debate each other and all viable
third party candidates. That action on your part would go a long way
towards convincing the members of my party that you are truly
interested in trying to address our concerns.
Thank you again for inviting us to speak. I'd be happy to answer any
questions.