Issue No. 2                  March 27, 2002

This newsletter is being provided on an intermittent basis by the U.S. Department of State's Office of International Information Programs in an effort to explain the "how" and "why" in addition to the "who," "what" and "when" of the 2002 election campaign in the United States. The next newsletter will be issued in May.

This issue includes:

-- Bush Signs Bipartisan Campaign Finance Reform Legislation -- Illinois Holds Primaries for Governor, Senator -- Hispanics Play Major Role in Texas Democratic Primary -- California Holds First State Primary Election -- Additional Gubernatorial and Congressional Departures -- Campaign Trail "Tidbits" -- Pundit "Pearls"

Bush Signs Bipartisan Finance Reform Legislation By Stuart Gorin Campaign Spotlight Editor

President Bush, saying the bipartisan campaign finance bill passed by Congress "will improve the current financing system for federal campaigns," signed the landmark legislation into law March 27.

The National Rifle Association immediately filed the first of several suits in federal court challenging the new law's constitutionality. The president said he would stay out of the legal battles.

Among the legislation's main provisions are:

-- Banning unlimited "soft money" contributions that unions, corporations and individuals donate to national political parties.

-- Raising from $1,000 to $2,000 the limit for individual "hard money" contributions for candidates per election.

-- Banning independent groups from broadcasting so-called "issue ads" on television and radio within 60 days of an election or 30 days of a primary. These ads refrain from advocating election or defeat of specific candidates but they refer directly to them.

-- Prohibiting foreigners from making contributions to federal, state or local election campaigns.

-- Requiring broadcasting stations to make public information relating to political advertising.

-- Allowing a candidate running against a wealthy opponent to raise hard money contributions at triple the usual amount.

The changes will not take effect until November 6 this year, so until then, the Republican and Democratic national committees will still be able to raise millions of dollars in soft money to support candidates in the midterm general election.

Congress had been trying for years to change the way funds are collected for elections in the United States, spurred by the efforts of Arizona Republican Senator John McCain, who made the issue the focus of his unsuccessful presidential bid in 2000. McCain said he was pleased that Bush signed the legislation.

The momentum in the bill's favor was in part due to the fund-raising scandals of the Clinton administration and the collapse last year of the energy trading company Enron, whose executives were prominent political donors to both parties.

In the House of Representatives, where Connecticut Republican Christopher Shays and Massachusetts Democrat Martin Meehan led a bipartisan effort on behalf of the measure, it passed by a vote of 240-189 on February 14.

Opposition in the Senate almost derailed the bill, but McCain and his Democratic partner, Wisconsin Democrat Russ Feingold, helped ensure its passage there by a vote of 60-40 on March 21.

Some members of the Senate however, led by Kentucky Republican Mitch McConnell, argued that several major provisions of the bill violate free speech rights guaranteed in the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and raise "equal protection" problems. McConnell intends to be the lead plaintiff in another suit against the measure that is expected to go first to a federal panel of judges and then to the Supreme Court for a decision.

Bush said in a statement issued after signing the bill that while it does "improve" the system, it is still "far from perfect." As a policy matter, the president said, he would have preferred "a bill that included a provision to protect union members and shareholders from involuntary political activities undertaken by their leadership." He said individuals have a right not to have their money spent in support of candidates or causes with which they disagree.

Still, Bush told reporters he would not have signed it if he were really unhappy with the legislation, adding the system encourages more individual participation as well as more disclosure.

According to Congressional Quarterly, there is "no denying the significance of this moment." The magazine pointed out that lawmakers have agreed to change the very system that elected them, "and in doing so, they have stepped into the unknown. They have perhaps put their own careers at risk."

Illinois Holds Primaries for Governor, Senator

Republican Attorney General Jim Ryan and Democratic Congressman Rod Blagojevich each won their respective parties' gubernatorial primary contests in Illinois March 19, and will face each other in November for the right to succeed retiring Republican Governor George Ryan.

The attorney general, who is not related to the governor with whom he shares a last name, won the Republican nomination over two challengers with 45 percent of the votes cast. On the Democratic side, Blagojevich had 37 percent of the vote, also in a three-way race.

In the Illinois Senate race, Democratic incumbent Richard Durbin had no primary opposition, and the Republican contest was won by State Representative Jim Durkin.

No members of Congress seeking reelection in Illinois lost in either party's primary.

Hispanics Play Major Role in Texas Democratic Primary

Hispanic candidates and voters played a major role in the Democratic primary election in Texas March 12 as record numbers showed up at the polls to nominate multimillionaire oilman and banker Tony Sanchez as their party's gubernatorial candidate and to enable school teacher Victor Morales to enter a runoff for a U.S. Senate seat bid.

In the Republican primary, Governor Rick Perry had no opposition, and Attorney General John Cornyn gained 77 percent of the vote over four little-known opponents to join the race to succeed retiring Republican Senator Phil Gramm in the November general election.

The Democratic gubernatorial contest was bitterly contested between Sanchez and former State Attorney General Dan Morales, who were both vying to become the first Hispanic ever nominated by a major political party in Texas. Morales accused Sanchez of laundering drug money and Sanchez called into question Morales' handling of attorney fees in a tobacco industry settlement when he was attorney general. Both men denied any criminal activity.

Sanchez' nearly two-to-one margin of victory gives him the right to challenge Perry in November. Perry is the state's former lieutenant governor, who is seeking his first full term as governor after taking over for now-President George W. Bush.

In the Democratic Senate contest to succeed Gramm, former Dallas Mayor Ron Kirk, an African American, edged Victor Morales by less than 4,000 votes. However, since neither received 50 percent of the votes cast, both will be in an April 9 runoff to see who will face Republican Cornyn in November.

Kirk and Morales, each with 33 percent of the vote in the Democratic primary, finished ahead of three other candidates, including Congressman Ken Bentsen, a nephew of former Senator and Treasury Secretary Lloyd Bentsen. Morales lost to Gramm in the 1996 Senate race.

No members of Congress seeking reelection in Texas lost in either party's primary.

California Holds First State Primary Election

America's first 2002 state primary election -- held in California March 5 -- featured the defeat of a controversial Democratic incumbent congressman, an upset by a political newcomer in the Republican gubernatorial race, and an opportunity for two sisters to make congressional history.

Much of the media attention in California was focused in the 18th District, where Congressman Gary Condit, whose name is linked to missing government intern Chandra Levy, lost his primary bid for reelection to a seventh term to a former ally, State Assemblyman Dennis Cardoza.

There was speculation at first that Condit would not seek reelection not only because of the Levy scandal but also because the boundary lines of his congressional district were redrawn as a result of the 2000 census. When he did announce again, he joined a field of six Democratic primary candidates, including Cardoza, who was once his aide and  protégé.

Cardoza won 55 percent of the votes cast, and Condit was second with 38 percent. On the Republican side, State Senator Richard Monteith won with 60 percent of the vote over three other challengers.

All other incumbents in both political parties who sought reelection won their primary races in the state.

In the gubernatorial race, where seven Republicans battled for the right to face Democratic Governor Gray Davis in the November general election, conservative businessman William Simon, the son of a one-time treasury secretary of the same name, came from behind in the public opinion polls to defeat former Los Angeles Mayor Richard Riordon, who had the support of the White House.

There were seven names on the Republican gubernatorial ballot. Simon, who gained 49 percent of the vote, vowed a strong general election battle against Davis, whom he accused of failing to improve public education and faulted for the state's energy crisis.

Davis, who had token opposition in the Democratic primary and won with 80 percent of the vote, said he believes many of Simon's conservative views are out of touch with most Californians. During the campaign, Davis actually ran his television ads against Riordan, believing the more moderate former mayor would be the stronger opponent.

Riordan once had a lead of more than 30 percentage points in the polls but he wound up with just 31 percent of the vote.

Democratic voters in the state's 39th District selected attorney Linda Sanchez, who will be heavily favored over a Republican opponent in November. She is the sister of 47th District Congresswoman Loretta Sanchez, another general election favorite. If successful, the two will become the first sisters ever to serve together in Congress. Their campaigns were closely aligned. In one television commercial, their mother urged voters to support both of her daughters.

Additional Gubernatorial and Congressional Departures

Jane Swift (Republican), Massachusetts Acting Governor, giving up reelection bid Fred Thompson (Republican), Tennessee Senior Senator, retiring Robert Borski (Democrat), Pennsylvania 3rd District, retiring Sonny Calahan (Republican), Alabama lst District, retiring Robert Ehrlich (Republican), Maryland 2nd District, running for governor

Campaign Trail "Tidbits"

-- North Carolina Primary: The North Carolina State Board of Elections voted unanimously to delay the scheduled May 7 primary election after the State Supreme Court halted the races for state legislative seats. A lower state court earlier ruled that newly drawn legislative districts were unconstitutional. Republicans and Democrats had argued over splitting counties in the redrawn districts. Meanwhile, the U.S. Justice Department approved the lines for the state's new congressional districts, but the Board of Elections said it did not want the expense of holding two primaries so everything would be on hold, possibly until as late as September.

-- Mississippi Redistricting: The U.S. Supreme Court has rejected a Democratic Party appeal of a congressional redistricting plan in Mississippi that appears to favor the Republicans in a redrawn district that will pit two incumbents against each other, one from each political party. The plan, necessitated because the state is losing one congressional seat due to dwindling population, originally favored the Democrats, who traditionally have the support of minorities. A federal panel later changed the boundary lines, however, to include greater numbers of voters who usually support Republicans.

-- Indiana Election Laws: Indiana Governor Frank O'Bannon has signed legislation establishing a way for military members serving overseas to fax their election ballots back to the state and for any eligible voter to go a registrar's office and cast a ballot up to one month prior to an election. The legislation also creates a central registration list to facilitate provisional voting, during which those whose names are missing could still vote by separate ballot while election officials investigate their eligibility.

-- Instant Runoffs: Voters in San Francisco made their city the first in the nation to establish "instant runoffs" by approving a referendum to allow candidates in local primaries to be ranked "first, second and third choices." Under this system, the candidates' votes will be added up until one accumulates a majority of votes, thus making runoff elections unnecessary.

-- Advertising Rule: The Federal Election Commission has approved a new disclosure requirement for groups independently running television ads on behalf of congressional candidates. As election day nears, the groups will have just 24 hours to report to the FEC any expenditure of more than $1,000. The requirement is aimed at making it apparent to the public who is behind the spending.

-- Television Time: The E.W. Scripps Company, which operates nine television stations throughout the country as well as 21 daily newspapers and several cable TV channels, announced that prior to primary and general elections this year, it will offer free airtime to political candidates every evening for five minutes. A Scripps executive said the aim of its "Democracy 2002" initiative is to bring individual citizens and groups into an active dialogue with candidates.

-- Census Bureau Report: The U.S. Census Bureau reported that during the 2000 presidential election, 60 percent of eligible voters cast ballots, which represents a two-percent increase over the 1996 election. The bureau's emphasis on eligible voters reflects a new approach to tabulating turnout at the polls. Instead of comparing the votes with the number of Americans who are old enough to vote, as it has done in the past, it compared them with the much smaller pool of people who are old enough to vote and are U.S. citizens. That approach reportedly presents a more accurate picture of turnout. Taking into account only the number of citizens who were actually registered to vote in the last presidential election, the bureau added, 86 percent cast ballots.

-- Voter Outreach: An alliance of more than 90 voter groups -- calling itself USA Votenet -- has issued a voter outreach report that outlines their best and worst practices in an effort to increase voter turnout for the upcoming midterm elections. Irene Natividad, an organizer of the alliance, said the plan was to ride the post-September 11 wave of patriotism sweeping the country to engage citizens who have never voted before. The alliance's report says the most effective method for increasing voter outreach is personal door-to-door canvassing, even though it also is the most time-consuming, labor-intensive way. The so-called worst practice, according to the report, is the use of the Internet, because while it did reach potential young voters who rely on e-mail and websites for communicating, it also is considered ineffective when large segments of the population, including the economically disadvantaged, have no access to computers or Internet hookup.

-- Young Voters: A national survey of 1,500 young Americans between the ages of 15 and 25 indicates that a large majority believe their votes "count" but also that candidates for political office are more concerned about older and wealthier people than they are about younger people. David Scaggs, executive director of the nonpartisan Center for Democracy and Citizenship, which co-sponsored the survey, said political candidates need to understand that young adults are a large unclaimed constituency in American politics and the survey results confirm they are ready to be asked to vote. Among other findings in the poll are that young people feel more positively about government and political involvement in the aftermath of the September 11 terrorist attacks.

-- Presidential Debates: Two third-party candidates in the 2000 presidential race -- Ralph Nader of the Green Party and Pat Buchanan of the Reform Party -- have called for replacing the Commission on Presidential Debates with a group that would be more in favor of allowing third-party candidates to participate in debates along with the Republican and Democratic candidates. Calling the debates a "critical platform," the two men said the commission has protected major party interests to the exclusion of viable third parties.

-- Convention Host City Proposals: Beginning the process of selecting host cities for their national nominating conventions in 2004, the Republican National Committee (RNC) has invited 24 cities to offer proposals and the Democratic National Committee (DNC) has extended the offer to ten cities. On the RNC list are Atlanta, Boston, Charlotte, Chicago, Cincinnati, Dallas, Denver, Detroit, Houston, Indianapolis, Los Angeles, Miami, Milwaukee, Minneapolis, Nashville, New Orleans, New York, Orlando, Phoenix, San Antonio, Seattle, St. Louis, St. Paul and Tampa. On the DNC list are Atlanta, Baltimore, Boston, Chicago, Dallas, Detroit, Houston, Miami, New York and Pittsburgh. The respective parties' site committees are expected to narrow down the choices to final winners next year.

Pundit "Pearls"

-- Washington Post columnist E.J. Dionne: "Passage of a bill banning unregulated soft money from political campaigns was an essential step toward righting a system that went off the rails in the 1990s. The bill plugs the largest loopholes in a law that had become all loopholes and no law. Now, at least, the rules that served the political system reasonably well in the late 1970s and the '80s can be enforced again.... What's obvious is that the bill is constitutional. Unlike earlier efforts at campaign reform, this legislation was drafted with a close eye to past Supreme Court decisions ratifying Congress' right to regulate political money. The court has made clear that limits on campaign contributions are constitutional because they are designed to curb the corruption that is inevitable when money plays too large a role in the calculations of politicians. That's exactly what banning unregulated soft money that has flowed into the process is designed to do."

-- Roll Call columnist Morton Kondracke: "It's good that political parties soon won't be able to collect soft money, but campaign finance reform isn't about to turn political operatives into angels. In fact, it's possible that one unintended consequence of reform will be to make American politics even more negative, harsh and partisan than it already is. That's because, to make up for the loss of soft money ($500 million in 2000), the parties will have to collect as much as they can in hard money and spend it in ways that will deliver the most devastating bang for the buck. So we should expect direct mail soliciting that's even more strident than at present, fundraising calls to corporate executives that are more high pressure and ads that excoriate opponents even more harshly to get the message across."

-- Policy Review editor Tod Lindberg: What we are about to learn is exactly how flexible, slippery and innovative money can be in finding its way into the political system. A ban on soft money changes the rules by which money flows, but it does not change the fact that money flows. Where there's a will, there's a way. And the one thing campaign finance reform does not do, because it cannot, is diminish the will to influence elections and politicians. That's for the simple reason that the stakes are so huge, at least for many of the big-money players, whether they are individuals acting out of ideological motivations or corporations looking for favorable treatment. Those passions won't diminish.... You can't do politics without money, that is certainly true. But it's actually politics that drives money. Because political outcomes matter as much as they do, interested parties step up. That's not corruption, but a simple artifact of the size and scope of modern government."

-- Baltimore Sun columnist Jules Witcover: [Kentucky Senator Mitch] McConnell is expected to target all soft money prohibitions under the new law, but especially the provision that will bar unregulated contributions for so-called issue advocacy ads within 30 days of a primary election and within 60 days of a general election if they specifically mention a candidate. Up until now, such ads by private groups have been able to name a targeted candidate in connection with a specific issue as long as they don't specifically call for a vote for or against that candidate. After this November's elections, when the new law triggers in, if such groups want to support or attack a candidate in an issue ad, they will have to do it with regulated, limited hard money. One purpose of the provision, in addition to severely reducing the soft money flow, is to eliminate late negative personal attacks by third parties that have increasingly poisoned the political campaign atmosphere.... The feat of closing off the soft money avenue that brought nearly half a billion dollars to the parties in 2000 is no small one, and the first meaningful campaign reform in more than 25 years."

-- New York Times writer Richard Berke: "Because the bill plugs the gusher of soft money from corporations and wealthy donors that has become so vital to the political parties, the high rollers who could write unlimited checks to the national parties will find that their role will not be as glamorous or easy. Instead of writing six-figure soft money checks to the national parties to help presidential contenders, their outlet now will be to lavish their money on state parties. Yet the legislation could empower another class of brokers: fund raisers who may not be well-known multimillionaires but who are industrious about soliciting donations from large numbers of people. In the world of politics and money, these fund raisers are known as bundlers. With the prohibition of the soft money, the premium will be on the harder-to-raise hard money that can be amassed in increments of no more than $2,000."

-- Club For Growth president Stephen Moore: "Mr. McCain's campaign bill would lead to less competitive, not more competitive, elections. A recent study of the myriad of campaign laws at the state level by the Jerome Levy Institute discovered that limitations on campaign spending and advertising, lead to higher election rates for incumbents. Is that what voters really want?.... What we need to invigorate our election process, increase voter participation and elect a more diverse and higher-quality Congress is to establish real competition through term limits. That would force turnover and create far more competitive elections. It would reduce corruption, because special interests wouldn't pour millions of dollars into campaigns if the winner were only going to be in power for six to eight years. Needless to say, there are no term limits in this McCain bill -- despite the fact that roughly two out of three Americans support them."

-- Cato Institute fellow Patrick Basham: "Out of 435 congressional districts, only a couple dozen experience truly competitive elections. This state of affairs is clearly incompatible with a healthy political system. Unfortunately, the ban on soft money fundraising by the national parties will make our elections significantly more uncompetitive. How so? Both major parties use soft money to increase the competitiveness of individual congressional races. Without those resources pouring into targeted districts, even fewer incumbents will be threatened by serious challengers, thereby reducing political competition. Furthermore, even fewer candidates will step forward to challenge these incumbents in the first place, thereby reducing political choice.... Overall, the reformed campaigns of the future will be less competitive, less controlled by candidates, more influenced by the mainstream media and involve fewer voters. Most Americans support campaign finance reform but this is not the future promised to them by campaign finance reformers."

Newsletter Editor: Stuart Gorin, IIP/T/DHR