An Old Debate

Claims of constitutionality are no new phenomenon in American politics. In 1832, President Jackson famously decried the Bank of the United States as unconstitutional in validating his opposition to the institution. Over one hundred years later, the Supreme Court struck down several of President Roosevelt’s New Deal programs under a similar rubric. Labeling legislation as at odds with the will of the founders is as old as the Constitution itself, as Harvard Law professor Mark Tushnet, told the HPR. “It’s always been the case that people say that controversial policy proposals they oppose are unconstitutional.”

Further, constitutional arguments have a cyclical nature. Harvard Law professor Laurence Tribe asserts, “If you go back some decades, it was common to attack lots of attempts to use federal power… as an unconstitutional excess.” These past few years have been a throwback of sorts. “We’re simply going into another cycle in which people are questioning the extent to which the movement from the Articles of Confederation to the Constitution really did give the central government such types of powers,” Tribe continues. While Tushnet and Tribe are correct that the Constitution has long been relevant to American politics, a perfect political storm in today’s environment has heighted the import of constitutional debate.

The Great Revival

Politicians seeking reelection in the polarized political climate have faced extraordinary fundraising and ideological demands. Policy arguments alone frequently fail to satisfy the base. Recognizing this limitation, politicians have capitalized upon the fact that Americans appear to align the morally good with the constitutionally permissible. As Harvard Law professor Richard Fallon elaborates, “The more sharply divided people become… then the more people are likely to roll out the heavy guns of constitutionality.” Politicians, seeking the ammunition that the Constitution provides, seek to take advantage of the moral weight of the founding document. Already, such claims paid huge dividends for Republicans in the 2010 elections, propelling firebrands like Allen West to Washington.

The never-ending media cycle adds fuel to the ideological fire. “How did the debate play out 200 years ago in a newspaper people read once a week because it was delivered to them by pony?” asks Roll Call editor Christina Bellantoni. “Now we have a debate at warp speed because of the Internet and 24/7 news media.” Steven Hayward, a political commentator and policy scholar, succinctly profiled what has become of national debate. Referring to then-Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s statement “Are you serious?” when asked about the constitutionality of the health care law, he reflected, “In a century, we’ve gone from three days [of discussion] to three words.” Because short sound bites are far more likely to garner attention than detailed policy speeches, substantive discussion about whether legislation is constitutional is almost impossible. Even the famed Lincoln-Douglas debates would likely be summarized into several succinct sentences by today’s media.

Moreover, the endless news cycle has allowed the Tea Party to play a significant role in elevating the Constitution in the public discourse. Bellantoni offers her perspective, stating that “The Tea Party sort of burst on the scene; they put on colonial garb and used the Constitution as their sort of weapon. And once that happened… you just got more and more lawmakers echoing what they heard at those rallies.” With the Tea Party championing a revival of the Constitution and the pressures of fundraising frenzies, invoking the founding document has become difficult to avoid for those seeking public office. Tea Party sympathizers and opponents have similarly been drawn into this discussion, laying the groundwork for continued heated rhetoric.

Who’re You Calling Unconstitutional?

Increased references to the Constitution, however, do not conflate with greater legitimacy. The debate over who has the right answers to these important constitutional questions rages on. Representatives Michelle Bachmann (R-MN) and Ron Paul (R-TX), among others, have called everything from the EPA to Obama’s health care policy unconstitutional. Scholars like Hayward nonetheless defend both claims. With regards to the EPA, Hayward fears that, “more and more we’re governed by administrators rather than by Congress,” which could have implications for the separation of powers. Regarding health care, he explains that, “with something like Obamacare, we are testing the limits of what is left of the Commerce Clause… if Congress has the power to [mandate that all citizens buy health insurance], what don’t they have the power to do?” Here, Bachmann and Paul’s constitutional arguments are rooted in deeply held ideological beliefs that government has exceeded its powers.

Yet others feel that such views run contrary to the very spirit of the Constitution. Tribe, for instance, views such positions to be “both ahistorical and functionally problematic.” Bachmann and Paul espouse, “a kind of literalist reading which would cripple the economy and which one couldn’t accept without, in fact, dismantling the entire federal structure.” Tribe goes so far as to label such rhetoric as “Neanderthal” emphasizing that the demands of modern society make such views antiquated. Indeed, opponents to landmark legislation like the Civil Rights Act similarly claimed that the Acts were unconstitutional.

Regardless of where the answer lies, broad discussion of constitutional values has some inherent value, simply because public discourse promotes civic awareness. Unfortunately, however, the heightened rhetoric has generally not translated into a deeper understanding of the Constitution among the American populace. In fact, Bellantoni explains, “most young people don’t have as much familiarity with the Constitution… as they did 30 years ago.” Ultimately, today’s intensely partisan rhetoric has created a toxic environment in Washington, with the result that the 112^th Congress is on track to becoming one of the least productive ever, a particularly dire situation, given its incredibly challenging tasks. For all the attention America has given the Constitution in recent years, Americans have failed to follow the founders’ wish to amicably resolve our differences.

Daniel Ki ‘15 and Jacob Drucker ’15 are Contributing Writers

It’s Relay for Life time again, so I’ve been thinking a bit about how charities raise money and which charities I’d like to support with a college student’s meager donations. More than twice as many Americans participate in Relay each year (3.5 million) than get cancer each year (1.5 million); Relay has become so widespread that participants can raise money for “Relay for Life” without ever mentioning cancer (of course, more than 3.5 million are affected with cancer each year, but I don’t think that that diminishes my point about Relay’s popularity).

I often wonder how limited the overall pool of charitable donations is. Does Relay compete for funds with other charities, or does it get people who would otherwise buy a burger give $20 to cancer research? I haven’t done enough research to answer that question, but based on the chart on page 53 of this NBER report, I suspect that only the very rich make huge changes in their giving based on the solicitations they receive (the giving rates for the other income groups are much steadier). As Relay is decidedly middle-class–it takes place at tracks all over the country, not the Plaza–I fear that it displaces other charitable giving rather than increasing the total.

For my part, I prefer to give my peanuts to worse-promoted charities or ones with a bit more personal meaning; events, as fun as they are, don’t sway me all that much. And I do like that Relay is pretty low-cost for the charity in its event and its solicitations. How do you choose where to donate on a tight budget?

*I hope that I haven’t made fundraising seem futile; certainly there is some elasticity to effort and creativity in fundraising.  If you’re mad at me for not being too kind to Relay, you can show me by donating here to my friend Fabian. I hope that the following isn’t hypocritical: if I’ve inspired you to donate to underpromoted causes, but you don’t have ideas for which to give to, I like (a) giving gift cards to the homeless; (b) the Crohn’s & Colitis Foundation of America; and (c) the Harvard Square Homeless Shelter.  And the Harvard Political Review.

Photo Credit: Flickr (Jeffrey Simms)

worst news we’ve heard for the GOP since the revelations about the RNC-funded trip to a lesbian-themed bondage night club in LA. Or was it a bondage-themed lesbian night club?

Speaking of which, how much of this fundraising shortfall can be attributed to Michael Steele’s gross mismanagement of the RNC? Or does it point to a more structural flaw in GOP strategy?

A Republican resurgence in the 2010 election?

One year into the Obama presidency, the Democrats have faltered on key initiatives, most notably health care reform, and public dissatisfaction with Congress has skyrocketed. Many factors that allowed for the GOP takeover in 1994, including voter frustration, a struggling health care reform effort, frail economic conditions, and a weakened Democratic president, recur today. Although the Democrats are prepared to defend their seats, if the GOP can take advantage of voter frustration and control the energized Tea Party contingent of its party, the Republicans will make significant gains in both the House and Senate in the upcoming midterm elections.

ANGRY ANGRY VOTERS

When Obama took office, he enjoyed high approval ratings and seemingly insurmountable congressional majorities. Voters had entrusted the Democratic Party with complete control of the federal government after expressing intense frustration with the Bush administration during the 2006 and 2008 elections. However, Matthew Baum of the Harvard Kennedy School explained that “expectations were so high and reality so bleak that it is not a surprise that many people were disappointed with Obama’s first year in office.” Indeed, despite the Obama administration’s and Congress’ efforts, the economy has not fully recovered, and the job situation is still bleak. Furthermore, Obama invested much of his political capital in health care reform, and has not yet seen tangible results. If reform does pass, it will nevertheless have cost Obama a great deal more time and political capital than he expected.

What may have turned popular support away from the Democrats was the extraordinary breadth of the agenda that Obama pursued. With a very high unemployment rate, Obama attempted to tackle health care reform, overhaul the conduct of two wars, and pass climate-change legislation. Many voters perceived all this activity as disregard for fiscal discipline. Former representative Ernest Istook (R-OK) told the HPR, “People have realized that spending more and increasing the size of government seems to be the common factor and principal motivation behind the decisions made in Washington.” According to a Rasmussen survey from early February, 75 percent of likely voters are “angry at [the] government’s current policies,” numbers typically seen before elections marked by major pick-ups for the minority party. Congressional approval ratings are similarly disastrous, a bad sign for the Democrats, who have controlled the legislative branch since 2007.

DEMS AND REPS MANUEVER

Democratic performance in November will depend on some semblance of economic growth, and though the economy has improved recently, high unemployment bodes poorly for the Democrats’ prospects heading into the midterm elections. Republican Scott Brown’s surprise victory in the Massachusetts Senate race set off alarm bells within the Democratic Party, prompting national attempts to rally an unenthusiastic base. According to Baum, “hubris definitely contributed to electoral defeat [in 1994],” and this year the campaign committees for House and Senate Democrats are fundraising nonstop, resolved not to repeat their mistakes.

The GOP cannot approach the midterms too complacently, however, as Republican incumbents must be careful to fend off attacks from the right. Even 2008 Republican presidential nominee Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) is facing a serious primary challenger, former representative J.D. Hayworth. Tea Party members, who are strongly opposed to many of Obama’s economic policies, are threatening Republicans to push their candidates rightward. The Tea Party movement, which has energized conservative and libertarian activists nationwide, has gained a significant following. But Istook predicts that “there will be continuing friction, but not major conflict” between the mainstream Republicans and the Tea Party.

An enthusiastic Republican base, including the Tea Parties, and widespread dissatisfaction with Democrats are key advantages for the GOP. If Republicans and passionate conservative activists cooperate, the overall conservative movement can overcome minor internal dissension. Furthermore, huge swings in independent support have uprooted the political balance. In recent elections in three states that Obama carried in 2008, Virginia, New Jersey, and Massachusetts, independents have voted 2:1 for Republican candidates.

Significant Republican gains in the House and Senate are extremely likely, given the present political climate and the lessons of history. Having won many competitive seats in the past two election cycles, the Democrats have a lot of ground to defend, a weakness compounded by the current economic environment. Although voters have not fully forgiven the GOP for its missteps during the past decade, by skillfully channeling voter frustration and offering a clear vision for America’s future, the Republicans could take back control of Congress.

Alex Chen ’13 is a Staff Writer.

Photo Credit: asecondhandconjecture (Flickr)

Dr. John Silvanus Wilson on the new administration’s approach to supporting Historically Black Colleges and Universities

Harvard Political Review: You have a long history in higher education especially involving HBCUs, but why did you decide to accept the position as executive director of the initiative?

John Wilson: Well, my experience in higher education professionally has been in white higher education. I have been between two institutions, MIT and George Washington University, but the focus of my dissertation at Harvard was on black colleges, and as I was raising money at MIT for all those years between 1985 and 2001, I was in touch with a number of black colleges through the United Negro College Fund. I was advising them and was a board member at several Foundations and their initiatives to strengthen black colleges. So I’ve had a hand in the world of HBCUs throughout my career, including co-teaching a course at the Harvard School of Education on black colleges and universities. The professional experiences that I’ve had at MIT raising money, at GW raising money, and working on a strategic plan along with my interest in black colleges, laid a pretty good foundation for me to assume this role at the White House.

HPR: Upon your acceptance President Obama said, “We’re delighted to have someone with the breadth and quality of experience that Doctor Wilson brings to address the challenges that our HBCUs face.” What challenges were he referring to and how do you plan to address them?

JW: Well, I’ll just cite a couple of key challenges. One, a lot of what’s going on in black colleges is unknown. A lot of the good things that are happening at black colleges are unknown. There seems to be a tendency to emphasize and accentuate all the bad things, all the negative news coming at us. Someone gets injured, or a faculty member gets in trouble, or a lot of students are leaving for financial reasons, then there are big headlines. But when there is breakthrough research going on, or students winning special awards, or major gifts coming in then there isn’t as much publicity. So we want to shift that. The way I’ve talked about it is that black colleges have a low signal to noise ratio – that is the noise of their vices is much louder than the signal of their virtue. We want to reverse that. We want to give them a stronger signal to noise ratio, and in order to address that, we’re going to be working with the black colleges to get the best news out about them. Another problem is, another major challenge is, what I call capital impairment. Black colleges simply do not have the financial base that some of the stronger institutions in higher education have, and yet we have disproportionately needy enrollment. So we need a stronger financial base. And that’s another reason why my background in fundraising comes into play. I don’t think there’s been an executive director yet of this office with the kind of fundraising background that I have, so I know that the President expects me to employ those skills in this role as well.

HPR: How do you think having an African American president affects the HBCU system, if at all?

JW: I think it’s not so much that he is African American, though that obviously matters in some important ways, symbolic and otherwise, but the fact of the matter is that he really is an education president. A central goal of his is to ensure that by the year 2020 we have the highest proportion of college graduates in the world. So it is his emphasis on education that makes him a very good president and partner for black colleges and all of higher education.

HPR: Is the initiative involved in any current policy or legislation?

JW: We have several important opportunities emerging from the Department of Education that are great fit with the challenges and strengths of black colleges. There is an access and completion fund that will be available. That is a brand new approach to strengthening higher education, and access and completion are two very important matters for black colleges. … The initiative is going to ensure that black colleges are well-positioned to tap some of those innovation fronts because we believe there are more than a few innovative ideas coming out of a number of our HBCUs. We want to make sure that we are partners with the federal government in pursuing that 2020 goal in both of those categories — that is completion and innovation.

SJ: Is the innovation fund the same thing that Secretary of Education Arne Duncan has been going around the country looking at schools for?

JW: In a sense yes, but this is different. There are innovation funds and ideas that are targeting K-12, and then there are some innovation funds and ideas that are targeting higher education. I think Arne’s emphasis for several months has been on the schools K-12. The higher education emphasis has been announced very recently.

HPR: Would you like to say anything more about HBCUs in general? Because I feel like they’re a group of institutions that people outside of the system know very little about or aren’t very aware of.

JW: I think it’s important for people to know that HBCUs are not the same, and though I’ve spoken about them as a group, and people ask me about them as a group, there is a same range of strengths or weaknesses within the HBCU world as there is in the general world of higher education. There are some really strong HBCUs. Spelman College is particularly strong. Morehouse and Hampton and Howard and Tuskegee are typically mentioned among the strongest institutions in the HBCU world.  There are some kind of mid-tier institutions that, based on what happens with the economy and a number of other things in the next coming years, could either shift to the stronger category or not. And then there are some institutions that are in real trouble. And Morris Brown College and Barber-Scotia College are two institutions that are in real trouble. … So there is a range, and it is important to see it that way, because I think people tend to regard HBCUs not according to the strongest, but according to maybe the mid-tier or even the weakest of the institutions and that’s unfortunate. That connects back to what I was saying about the signal to noise ratio. We have to strengthen the signal to noise ratio.

Photo Credit: Ed.gov

Terry McAuliffe on the Democratic Party in 2009

Terry McAuliffe has been helping democrats get elected for decades. He formerly served as the chairman of the Democratic National Committee and ran for Governor of Virginia earlier this year. He is a visiting fellow at the Institute of Politics and recently sat down with the Harvard Political Review.

Harvard Political Review: You ran for governor in Virginia this year. What was it like to have your name on the ballot after so many years behind the scenes?

Terry McAuliffe: Honestly, there really for me wasn’t much difference. When you’re chairman of the party and you don’t have the White House you’re sort of the chief spokesperson for the party, going after the president. So I wasn’t too much behind the scenes. I was pretty visible out there. … The best difference is it’s my campaign and I did what I wanted to do. I didn’t have to rely on anyone else. I said “These are the important issues that I want to raise.” And I pretty much did what I wanted. I raised some big issues on green energy. I’m the first candidate to ever tell Dominion Power that I wouldn’t take their contribution. … Probably the hardest difference would be fundraising. I’m pretty good at fundraising, pretty good at asking for money, but it’s a little different when you’re asking for money for yourself.

HPR: If you ran again, what would you do differently? Would you do it again?

TM: Sure I would! I’d have to look at the circumstances. In an open primary, it’s a free shot for Republicans to come and vote against me. I don’t mind people voting against me in a general election, but I don’t like people coming into a Democratic primary and voting. I’m not a big fan of open primaries. I mean, why would you let the other party come in and help determine the nominee of the party they’re going to run against? But, look, I’ve always loved politics.  I loved running and had always wanted to run. I always keep all my options open. You never know what could happen in life.

HPR: Looking at the Democratic Party on a national level, are you optimistic about the future?

TM: Oh, very optimistic. I give President Obama a lot of credit. We all knew he was going to tackle these very rough issues. Health care was going to be hard. I lived through the 90′s with the Clintons. It’s a tough issue. There’s a lot of money involved. Insurance companies are making a lot of money and when there’s a lot of money involved the special interests are really going to get jacked up. And they’re fired up on this one! But I think Republicans are going to have a hard time now if you look at Electoral College maps. We picked up the coasts. We got Virginia, Indiana, New Mexico, Colorado, Nevada. We won Florida. We won North Carolina. I think if you look at the population growth for the Hispanic community, the Pacific Islander community, the African American community — those are core constituencies of population growth who vote now overwhelmingly democratic. The Republicans are going to have a very hard time now. They’re going to have to reach out somehow to these growth communities or they’re going to find themselves in a very difficult position.

HPR: What do you expect to see happen in the 2010 mid-term elections? Will Democrats lose seats?

TM: I think in 2010 we’re going to see what is normal to see at the mid-term of a president’s first term — losing somewhere between 16 to 24 seats. In the Senate we’ve got 60 seats. Could we lose two or three seats? Definitely. We’ve got some tough races. Senator Dodd’s got a tough race. Arkansas is now a top race. The Republicans have retirements so we’ve got some opportunities. But all in all, I think President Obama has been doing exactly what he said he would do and Republicans are not offering alternatives, they’re just firing at him.

HPR: So you’ve been impressed with President Obama’s political performance so far?

TM: I have. I mean he came in, he did stem cells, and he addressed the Iraq issue. In two hundred days, it’s been all about the economy. Now, I’m not a big fan of bailouts, but we had to get some money injected into the system; we were on the verge of going off a cliff.

HPR: What do you think will be President Obama’s major vulnerabilities going into the 2012 elections?

TM: I think what we need to do is get health care done. Financial services regulation needs to get done. We have a 60 seat majority in the Senate, and we have a big majority in the House, so I’m a believer in, if we we’re going to do things, let’s do them right. If we do these things right, it’s better for businesses, it’s better for the economy. I don’t ever go to bed worried about my children having a catastrophic illness. But for most Americans, they do. At a minimum, we have to cover catastrophic illnesses for all Americans. So I’m big on a public option, but you don’t always get what you want. But I promise you, there is going to be health care legislation this year.

HPR: The youth vote has been such a tremendous force for the Democratic Party. How can you keep them engaged?

TM: It’s interesting when I talk to young people, and I ask them if they’re active, the general theme is “Well, not really. We won! We’re done now.” And I ask, what do you mean we’re done? Now the hard part starts! We really need to keep young people energized. Some are dispirited today because of the economy. A lot of the students I’ve met are worried about their prospects in the workforce, and they want to see results. I think in 2012 they’ll stay engaged. But the real challenge will be next year. Because if you look historically at the youth vote and the elderly vote, the proportion of the elderly represented in midterms goes way up. And those elections will really impact Obama’s ability to move his proposals forward. We’ve got our work cut out for us. The attitude for a lot of folks is “Yeah! It was a great ’08! We won, I can relax.” Forget it! We’re just starting!

Photo Credit: Wikimedia Commons

The debate surrounding campaign finance reform has too long revolved around esoteric questions such as whether money is speech, or whether corporations are persons under the First Amendment. Those questions are fine for the Supreme Court, but for the practical purpose of enacting meaningful campaign finance reform (which the Court then, of course, can review), they have little relevance. One framework for understanding campaign finance that is too often overlooked starts with the mundane fact that politicians pursue their self-interest. Candidates will always find loopholes in the law unless their fundraising incentives are fundamentally changed, unless they see compliance as being in their political interest. If that is true, the future of campaign finance reform – if there is to be one – will depend on legislators’ ability to craft a system that candidates like. It seems counterintuitive, but effective campaign finance reform might just depend on satisfying politicians.

Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Self-Interest

In an ideal world, politicians would stay in power by enacting legislation that makes society better off and thus endears politicians to their constituents. However, as Alex Keyssar of the Harvard Kennedy School explained, there is something fundamentally different about campaign finance. “An inherent problem we’ve seen with reform,” Keyssar said, “is that the people making decisions are the people who won elections under the old system.” They have a perverse set of incentives to maintain the system under which they know they can win.

Even when a piece of reform legislation is passed, like McCain-Feingold in 2002, mile-wide loopholes can destroy its effectiveness. 527s and other so-called “independent” organizations falling outside the regulatory scope of the Federal Election Commission have raised enormous amounts of money to support or oppose candidates and causes. Keyssar believes that this means more restrictions are needed. “What the last 20 years of law have told us is that if you don’t limit expenditures, [politicians] will simply find a way around fundraising limitations.” But spending limits will be a tough sell to politicians whose success is owed, in no small part, to their ability to spend at least as much as, if not more than, their opponents. Of course, there are policymakers who strongly believe that spending limits are tantamount to speech restrictions, but most politicians are more pragmatic than ideological, and, perhaps, care more about getting re-elected than anything else.

Regulatory Side Effects

One reaction to this situation is to believe that campaign finance reform has counterproductively opened the door for politicians to distort the electoral system by drafting legislation designed to keep money out of their opponents’ hands. Bradley A. Smith, the former Republican chairman of the FEC, told the HPR that the history of campaign finance reform has been marked by both Parties’ efforts to gain a financial edge. “If you know how the other side spends money,” Smith explained, “you can pass laws to hurt them and leave you untouched.” Many Democrats, for instance, remained silent as Barack Obama tapped the enormous potential of the Internet in the 2008 election to raise unprecedented amounts of money. But, according to Smith, Democrats had strongly opposed direct-mail solicitations because Republicans historically excelled at that way of raising money. Thus, while the Internet may change how candidates raise money, one can understandably believe, as Smith does, that “it will simply lead to a change in strategies to limit the opposition’s access to funds.”

Anti-reform activists further argue that these self-serving motives make regulated elections inherently unfair. John Samples, director of the Center for Representative Government at the Cato Institute, told the HPR that one of the most detrimental side effects of the reform movement has been to make it even more difficult for congressional challengers to unseat incumbents. While there are many factors that combine to give incumbents a significant advantage, Samples argued that challengers especially need money to get the necessary publicity to defeat a sitting representative, and “if you make [fundraising] a little harder, then in marginal cases you will keep people from coming into the system.”

Channeling Self-Interest

But while politicians’ self-interest has been a major hindrance to campaign finance reform thus far, some reformers believe that, if channeled appropriately, self-interest could actually advance reform efforts. Nick Nyhart, the president and CEO of Public Campaign, a nonprofit advocacy organization, told the HPR that one factor driving some politicians to use public financing is precisely “the pressure they feel to fundraise.” The Fair Elections Now Act, which has been introduced in both the House and the Senate, relies on politicians’ desire for a truce in the fundraising war, and, according to Nyhart, its passage would give federal candidates strong incentives to tap into a public financing program. Under the proposed law, candidates would only be eligible for public funds if they sought donations from their constituents of $100 or less. Once they reached a certain threshold of private donations, candidates who opted into the system would then receive a fixed amount of public funding, plus an additional four dollars for each dollar they raised through small contributions.

Other new campaign finance proposals are similarly designed to appeal to politicians’ self-interest. In 2000, for instance, Maine and Arizona adopted a Clean Elections program, a public financing system that is beginning to catch on in other states as well. Under the Clean Elections plan, a candidate who runs with public money is guaranteed additional matching funds if he or she faces a privately funded opponent. So far these incentives appear to have been effective: in Maine statewide elections, for instance, the vast majority of candidates choose to finance their campaigns with public money. Nyhart is hopeful that the same effects can be duplicated at the national level. “Ultimately,” he said, “we want a system where candidates would rather take public financing than run with private funds.”

In the end, the responsibility for improving campaign finance laws falls on legislators, not the courts. Whether money is speech and whether corporations get the full protection of the First Amendment are difficult and interesting questions, but they are not as relevant to the implementation of practical campaign finance reform as we tend to think. Regardless of the restrictions that Congress imposes on fundraising, if there is no incentive for candidates to abide by them, politicians will continue to find new loopholes to exploit. Future campaign finance reforms, if they are to be significant and effective, will have to grapple with politicians’ baser motives in order to make sure that, paradoxically, the political process itself is uncorrupted.

David Plouffe discusses the 2008 race and campaign reform

David Plouffe was the chief campaign manager for President Obama’s 2008 race. He has consulted the Democratic Party for years and is respected nation-wide as a political strategist.

Harvard Political Review: Since the inauguration, the Obama for America campaign has become Organizing for America, but grassroots excitement seems to have lagged. Can this leaner mobilizing group really make a difference in supporting the President’s agenda?

David Plouffe: I think that anything Organizing for America does is really a bonus. No president has ever had this much engagement from the American people. The fact that his message is being shared with millions of Americans is an amazing asset. But, as the organization builds its staff and expands, Organizing for America will only become more important. As it is, thousands of Americans are canvassing, sharing and having conversations about the President’s beliefs for America’s future.

HPR: The Obama Campaign raised over three-fourths of a billion dollars, more than both of the 2004 presidential candidates combined. Are presidential campaigns only going to become more expensive? Does public financing have a future?

DP: It could. I think that there will be efforts to try and reform the public financing system to meet the times and I hope those are successful. We are very proud of the way that we raised our money: an average contribution of 85 dollars, four million contributors, and no money from Political Action Committees or lobbyists. The real danger in campaign fundraising is where it comes from. People expecting influence and voters are very concerned about that. Obama is the only major party candidate to ever refuse money from PACs. John McCain certainly didn’t. The DNC still does not take PAC money and it is the first time a political party has never done so. He is walking the walk in this regard. Our campaign was funded by the American people so we feel good about how we raised our money. And it was historic to have it to come from people that way and not from lobbyists and PACs. I think that there will be an effort in Congress to try and reform the system and I hope something can be done. It would be good to have a system more reflective of the times, but we will see what they come up with.

HPR: Do you think that it is problematic that presidential campaigns are so expensive? Does it make it inaccessible? Is the bar set too high for the future?

DP: It is not inaccessible. What Barack Obama proves is that someone who doesn’t have establishment support can compete. We won the primary as a grassroots underdog. No, I think that generally what a federal financing system will allow you to do is to lessen the amount of money that is spent, which is a good thing. But you have to find a way to get around these outside groups. We were pounded relentlessly by the shadowy 527s. Someone can open up a bank account, bring you a ten million dollar check, and then next thing you know be on the air right after that. Any talk of reform has to have some way to deal with that when it happens. If someone dumps fifty million dollars against you, you have to have the ability to fight back. I hope that the public financing system is addressed and reformed, but again I think that you have to focus on the way we raised our money. It has never been done before like that to have so many Americans giving money and it is a very healthy thing for democracy.

HPR: Looking back on the race, what was the biggest mistake the campaign made?

DP: Any endeavor like this is going to make a lot of mistakes. Obviously we didn’t win the New Hampshire primary and there are a lot of reasons for that. We didn’t win the Texas primary and that might have been able to end our primaries. There was a lot of mistakes that we made, but we got the big strategic positions right. Barack Obama executed at an extraordinarily high level. You have to remember how improbable all of this was. We began this as big of an underdog as you will ever find in politics. We thought we had to run a near-perfect campaign to win the primaries. We didn’t, but our central thoughts about our message and strategy ended up holding true and he ended up just being a tremendous presidential candidate. … I feel blessed to have been part of a campaign where so many of our big assumptions turned out to be correct. But that is not always the case. In this case it was.

HPR: The Bush administration has been criticized for waging a perpetual campaign in office. Can the Obama administration strike an appropriate balance between the campaign mentality and simply governing?

DP: Right now, I don’t think there is any campaign mentality going on. I think that Obama is simply trying to educate people about where he thinks this country needs to go and build support for that. There is a lot of support in the country for what he is trying to do, and there is a lot of support amongst Republicans in the country: Republican voters, Republican business leaders, and even some local Republican elected officials. But the Republicans in Washington have just decided on a strategy of “no”. Now that seems to be their electoral strategy and I think that is destined to fail. … [Our] goal in mind is not to get votes but simply to have conversations out there about what the president is trying to accomplish. That has never really been done before and our goal is to convince as many people to support the president’s agenda whether they are going to vote for him next time or not. The Republicans seem to be unhappy that the president’s approval rating remains high, but I think they ought to look in the mirror because what the American people want is solutions. … I would make a distinction between Republicans and Republicans in Washington. Republicans in Washington are arguing for one of two things: either return to the Bush policies or return to the politics as usual. … I don’t think they really understand the lessons of the past election or the lessons of where the voters are today, which is that they desperately want to make progress on these long-term challenges and they want the dialogue in Washington to be different. The important thing is that the American people believe that the president is trying to reach out, and he is. And he is going to continue to try and reach out, and maybe eventually some of the Republicans in Washington will help out and lend a hand.

HPR: Some people compare being a campaign manager to being a CEO of a business. To what degree do you think that this comparison is apt?

DP: Well, a campaign is not a business. We do not have cycle after cycle. We win or lose on Election Day. Our shareholders are our contributors and volunteers so there is some similarity there. Companies have business plans, forecasts for growth, and keep an eye on their competitors, so we have similar dynamics. We have a campaign message and strategy. We are trying to not reach a profit number but to reach a certain number of votes. Everything we do goes into measuring that. I think that we were a campaign that had a very clear strategy message, we were disciplined about measuring metrics of progress, and so we were a campaign that was fueled at the grassroots level where I think that people felt a great ability to help in their own way. That was all married to very serious goals and metrics. I think there is some similarities right there, but sometimes the comparison is taken too far because trying to sell a product is much different than a candidate running for office. We don’t have ten years to build our office. We have election day: either you win or you lose. There is no “we improved a little this quarter and we’re on a good trajectory”. The campaign world is much more black or white and it is a great motivator because I do not believe that a good effort in politics is worth anything because you are in politics because you believe that your party and your candidate is going to make a much more positive contribution to the future of the country. We don’t settle our disputes in this country by violence or civil war; we settle them at the ballot box. So this is deadly serious stuff: elections can affect the future of the country and so for that reason a good effort does not mean anything. You have to win because the stakes are big and our opponents believed the same thing. You have to win.

And as for Mr. Spontaneous himself? If the whole Congress thing doesn’t pan out, he may have a career ahead of him as a Democratic fundraiser.

How much have Texan oilmen shaped America?

Reporter Brian Burrough follows his last corporate epic, Barbarians at the Gate, with a new book, The Big Rich, replacing skyscrapers and three piece suits with oil wells and Stetson hats. It is a sprawling story set across several continents, chronicling gumption, love, betrayal, politics, family squabbles, and Muammar al-Gaddafi. But if the  business acumen of the Texas oilmen Burrough scrutinizes is striking, so is their lack of political finesse.  Burrough makes much of their outsized business success, but it remains remarkable how little the Western tycoons were able to alter the Washington landscape. It may be that moderate Texas Republicans and the entrenched Washington establishment exploited the Big Rich’s vast fortunes; their legacy remains one of business rather than political domination.

“Tomorrow’s Another Day”

Burrough describes many Texas oilmen, but ultimately focuses his lens on Hugh Roy Cullen, Clint Murchison, Sid Richardson, and H.L. Hunt, whom he calls the “Big Four.” Though more or less unrelated, “A good ol’ boy, a scold, a genius, and a bigamist” made billions from similar titanic visions and oft-forgotten Northern investors.

These four, nevertheless, personified the limitless ambition that is still at the heart of America’s venerable capitalist spirit. Despite repeated failure, they fought for their dream, certain that hundreds of millions of barrels of black gold lay hidden in the earth. In their minds, success was always around the corner — which it eventually was. As a soiled, tired, and poor Cullen tells his wife after another day of futile drilling, “Tomorrow’s another day.”

What can money buy?

And their money, like practically all money, finally found itself on Capitol Hill, where it sought to midwife what Burrough terms “ultraconservatism.” Indeed, some of the Big Four were Sen. Joseph McCarthy’s strongest supporters. And though moderates like Dwight D. Eisenhower and even progressives such as LBJ and FDR came hat in hand to Texas donors, the two sides existed in angry tension. Even as Eisenhower used this Southern base for fundraising, he privately considered its members to be “stupid,” reactionary hicks. Still, these purported hicks produced big names and keen minds that came to dominate the modern Republican Party. James Baker’s grandfather shows up, as does Bush the Elder. But they were not really emblematic of Texas oil tycoons, content to promote center-right agendas, while paying lip service to their funders.

And just as the Big Rich’s money couldn’t help them totally buy the Senate or the House, it couldn’t help them buy worldliness either, no matter how frequently they jetted about to conduct international energy deals. Recent history, such as the continuing problem of the U.S. trade deficit with China coupled with persistent, unwelcome, and extensive corporate and political espionage by Beijing, still confirms that a healthy skepticism of foreign economic partners should be encouraged, and the Four faced nearly as much trickery abroad. But, professional prudence and chauvinism are two different things, and the Big Rich rarely hit the mark, to no credit to their legacy, and sometimes their economic success.

Family Legacy

In the end, how did they fare? The moguls’ children kept the family business alive, but not with its old success. With the exception of Richardson’s wily nephew, Sid Richardson, the Big Four’s offspring proved inept at managing the empires or at negotiating with hostile players, such as Gaddafi of Libya. Other scions sank money in misguided side business such as Hunt’s food company. But they did survive, with recent conquests such as Hunt Oil’s 2003 acquisition of major contracts from the Bush administration to drill in Northern Iraq.

In retrospect, the Big Four were as dogged as they were brilliant, though this sometimes allowed for foolish ventures. That the Big Four didn’t know when to quit was both a liability and an asset. In the grand scheme of things it was probably the latter, but their dogged simplicity proved completely out of place in politics and robbed them of their impact. There can be no doubt that the Big Rich deserve their place in American history, but the limit of their success is evident, especially beside icons such as Andrew Carnegie and Nelson Rockefeller; in the end, money might just not buy what it used to.