Although the Watergate scandal and its web of bagmen and
illegal contributions led to some new, much needed election
rules and regulations, it took 30 years until the
McCain-Feingold campaign reform act in 2002 made
unprecedented changes to the way elections are funded.
We were "moving in the right direction," former Senator
Russ Feingold, co-sponsor of the McCain-Feingold law, said
to Moyers & Company senior writer Michael Winship at
Common Cause's recent conference commemorating the 40th
anniversary of Watergate. But the Supreme Court's 2010
Citizens United decision - which Feingold describes as
"lawless, almost absurd" - and other rulings have
eviscerated campaign finance reform in America.
Nonetheless, Feingold believes that scandal and change will
come - that the current system of virtually unlimited and
often anonymous campaign monies is not sustainable and
"will fall of its own weight."
Michael Winship: So senator, let me start off just by
asking you, we're at a conference that marks the 40th
anniversary of Watergate. Where were you when the scandal
unfolded, what were you up to?
Russ Feingold: I was an undergraduate at the University of
Wisconsin, Madison, and during both summers of Watergate I
was working in the Capitol Square. So we would come home
from work, in the summer especially, and we'd sit in front
of our beat up old couch and get a couple of beers out and
watch this thing unfold with absolute fascination. On the
day when Nixon resigned we all went down to State Street,
to what had to be one of the greatest parties I've ever
been at in my life. It was in the afternoon and there was
enormous celebration that this scandal that had come to the
fruition of actually forcing the president to resign. So I
was a very happy undergraduate at my alma mater.
Michael Winship: I was in Lafayette Square, actually. That
was an amazing - very similar, I think. But it was a great
impetus for campaign finance reform at the time. So much
happened that seemed to be culminating with
McCain-Feingold. What happened?
Russ Feingold: Well, it's really very simple. It's not like
everything wasn't going in the right direction. We had
closed the soft money loophole, the 527s had been reined in
by the Federal Elections Commission after the 2004
election. People were turning in Howard Dean's campaign, my
Senate campaign, the president's campaign, to small dollar
internet contributions without transactional conversations.
All of it was moving in the right direction, with the hope
that we would start moving toward serious talk about public
financing more at the national level. Then the Supreme
Court, on a five to four vote, decided to destroy the whole
edifice of campaign finance reform in what I consider to be
a lawless, almost absurd decision that was not required in
any way by the facts of the case. That's what opened the
spigot, and that's why we are where we are today.
Michael Winship: So how do we fight back against Citizens
United? What do you tell people that they can do to
overturn it?
Russ Feingold: There are many people working to change
this. I founded a group called Progressives United. Our
agenda is to make it clear to people that we can overturn
this decision. The Court could change its mind, but more
likely, President Obama hopefully will have an appointment
or two and this can be overruled. But in the meantime, we
can pass disclosure laws. You know, eight to one, the same
Court in Citizens United said of course there should be
disclosure, but the Republicans won't vote for it. So
getting that through Congress, passing disclosure at the
state level, as in California. They're very close to it.
Working on public financing models, as in New York. The
City of New York has one of the best public financing
systems in the country. We want Governor Cuomo to take it
up a notch and to pass statewide public financing now. So
it's a synergy between what happens in the court, what
happens in Congress, what happens in the state
legislatures, and what the public can do to demand that
specific issues not reflect the dominance of big money. For
example, demanding that there be accountability for what
people did on Wall Street, making the SEC require companies
to disclose what they do with political funding. So there
are many, many good projects going on, and we just need to
make it clear to the public that this is a sea change. This
isn't the same old, same old. Their dollars that they use
to buy a gallon of gas or a tube of toothpaste have never
before been able to be used for campaigns, and now they
are. That is a big change.
Michael Winship: I saw an analysis yesterday analyzing data
from the Federal Election Commission, saying that in the
2012 election it cost a senator, or a challenger, more than
- what was it, $10 million on average to hold onto or win a
seat, and more than a million and a half for a seat in the
House of Representatives. How can democracy survive that
kind of money?
Russ Feingold: Well, it will fall of its own weight. The
system is becoming so corrupted with unlimited undisclosed
conversations about huge contributions that have never been
seen before that I believe that there will be a huge
scandal. I actually think the scandal is occurring. It just
needs to be uncovered. I don't think the system is
sustainable, for either candidates or the interests that
are being hit up for it. You know, it's like a form of
blackmail. When politicians or their agents call up
companies and rich people and say, "We want you to give
this money," what are they - you know, they're being
basically blackmailed into giving this kind of
contributions. So I think this will be changed, and I think
one of the elements of change will be people and
corporations and wealthy people saying, "You know, we're
not comfortable having to do this."
Michael Winship: It's been ten years since the Iraq War.
You were one of the voices against that war, you were the
sole vote against the Patriot Act. If you look at the
situation now, with drone warfare and what's going on, what
are your thoughts about that?
Russ Feingold: My thought is that it appears that things
are just waking up, that people are finally -
unfortunately, it took 11 years. In fact, I wrote a book
that included comments about this called While America
Sleeps, where there was a failure to continue the popular
concern about what happened in the Patriot Act and
President Bush's warrantless wiretapping program. I think
what we're seeing with Rand Paul and Ron Wyden and others
starting to talk about this across party lines, with
conservatives as well as liberals challenging it, I think
there may be an opportunity for an era to challenge Dick
Cheney's view of the Constitution, which is a very flawed
view.
Michael Winship: And I just wanted to ask you quickly about
filibuster reform. That's something that you've been very
outspoken about.
Russ Feingold: Yes. Look, we need to make some changes to
this filibuster. The changes that were made were
inadequate, they were window dressing - that were made by
Harry Reid and the Democrats in the Senate. They wanted to
do more. What you can do here is, at a minimum, require
people to actually talk when they do a filibuster. You
know, the other day, that was a real filibuster by Rand
Paul, but there was a silent filibuster killing a perfectly
good candidate for judge. There should have to be some
rules with respect to that, and I think that's something to
fight for.
