April 1983 Volume XIX, No.2 Price 51.50 Washington's Fifth Estate: Special Interest IIIIII Lobbies RIPON fOR~M Editor's Column Editors Col umn 2 Proliles and Perspectives: l The press's presence ill Washington has often beell A Convusation with Bilt Frenzel A Connnalion with reJerred to as the "Fourth Estate." But today there C harln Mathias 6 seems to be a "Fifth Estate" developing: special Ktepinll Track of Special Intern lS 8 interest groups. Much auention, in Jact, has been Jocused on a particularly important aspect oJspecial Republiu n Party Rules: 16 illterest groups: political action committees. Beuer The Mandate for Change: J osi.h Ln Auspill. known as PACs, their influence in Wa shington and on the campaign trail has created considerable The Chairman's Corner: 21 PAC, Amcrkana: Jim Lnch contro l'ersy. To determine theaclllal influence had by PA Cs, as 41 9 New Jel'$cy Avenue well as to provide a thorough review oJthe electoral system. this edition oj Ripon Forum hears Jrom a number oj moderate Republicans who ha\'e been deeply illl10lved with this issue. This includes Senator Charles Mathias, Represemati\.'e Bill Frenzel and Ripon chairmallJim Leach. each oJwhom providesa different perspectil'e. In addition, a Jormer editor oj this magazine and an expert in Republican Party rules. Lee A II spitz, presents a comprehensive critique oj (h e GOP's nominating structure, cal/ing Jor immediate reJorm. Plus. a chart is included to RIPON fORIJM demonstrale the voting patterns produced by special EditOr: Witllam P. McKenzie interest groups, the bottom line oj which is that the Editorial Board: Daniel Swllli!'lger Sandra Thompson Fijih Estate. while lacking final COllfrol. does wield At/reo W. Tate an enormous alllOlJll( ojpower. Art Director. Elizabeth Lee (The Graphic Tuna) Photographers: Denla Finnin Cartoonist: George BrawlSler - Bill McKenzie THE RIPON FORUM (ISSN 0035-5528) is published bi-monthty in 1983. In the publication. the Society hopes 10 provide a forum for fresh ideas, well researched proposals. and a ,pint 01 creative criticism and Innovation In the Republican Party. Manuscripts and photographs are solicited, but do not representlhe views oI lne Society unless so stated. Contents are copyrighted 1983 by the Ripo<'! Society, Inc.. 4t9 New Want to subscribe to the RIPON FORUM? Or Jef3ey Avenue, 5.E., Washington. D.C. 20003. to give a friend a gift subscription to the voice of moderate Republicanism? If so, send your second clasa postage and fees paid at Washington, D.C. and additional mailing offices. name, address and $25 (which includes a national membership) to: Subscription rates: $25 per year. $ 17.50 lor students. servicemen, Peace Corps, Vista and other votunteers. OviIf3eas, add 56. Please allow liva weeks for addresa changes. THE RIPON SOCIETY 419 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. The Ripon Soclety. lnc...Frederic R. Kellogg. president, is a Republican research and policy organization whose membaf3 are business, academic. Washington, D.C. 20003 and protesslonal men and women. Il ls headquartered in Washington. D.C .• with Natlon"l Assocl,,'e membef3 throughout Ihe United Stales. The Society Is supported by chapter dues. individual contributions. and revenues from ilS publications and conlract wort. 2 RIPON FORUM Profiles and Perspectives M oderate Republicans for some time have been on parties. As long as the contributors contribute voluntarily, J the forefront of reforming the campaign system. Dating don't see that it makes any difference who decides how it is back to 1974, when Re publicans like John Anderson were spent. instrumental in developing campaign finance legis lation, Ripon Forum. Along these same lines, do you think GOP moderates have concerned themselves with devising that Washington's lobbyist-lawyers, as one observer re­ an open, accountable election system. cently commented, set the national agenda? Two moderates who have been especially involved in th is Frenzel. The lobbyist-lawyers probably have always are Representative Bill Frenzel, R-Minn., and Senator been involved in trying to set the national agenda. Today Charles McC. Mathias, R-Md. Interviewed by Forum they will hold a fundraiser for Senator Mondale, or for that editor Bill McKenzie for this installment or " Profiles and matter anyone else runni ng for election, and then invite a lot Perspectives," F renzel, the ranking minority member on ofPACs. But in the old days they would have done it much the House Admin istration Committee, and Mathias, the more quietly, with bigger checks and probably smaller chairman of the Senate Committee on Rules and Admini­ numbers of people. Under the rules now, all those actions stration. offer two distinctively different views on a subject are disclosed. Everybody knows who the players are, which which promises to be of considerable interest this legislative seems to me a far better system. session. Ripon Forum. Docs their role lead toinefficientlegisia­ tion? For example, the safe-harbor leasing provision in the 1982 tax bill was the product of in tense lobbying efforts. But today there seems to be a growing consensus in Washington that this must be rescinded. Frenzel. Sure. I think the lobbyist-lawyers have always done that to us. J ust as they laid on us the Appalachian programs and Great Society programs, they are always trying to muscle in to get a dam hearing here or a defense facility there. But those people have always been with us. A Conversation The good thing is that under the election law political activities and contributions are now revealed, and every­ with Bill Frenzel body knows where everybody else is. Ripon Forum. You mentioned during the debate over Rf'preSf'nloli"e Bill Frf'llul Obey-Railsback, the 1979 legislation which attempted to limit candidates to $70,000 in PAC receipts during a two­ Ripon Forum. In 1979 you wrote that political action year election cycle, that labor would be left with "enormous committees (PACs) have been the " greatest. in facl. the legal advantages to spend involuntary contributions of its only institution in our society that has encouraged and members." Iflaborwas restricted, would you be more li kely expanded poli tical participation by the public." Could you to favor restricting PACs? please elaborate upon this? Frenzel. I guess I'm not sure why labor should be Frenzel. In poli tics there is only one source of contribu­ restricted. If a group of people wish to get together and tion and that is from individuals. PACs provide a reference espouse certain philosophies, they should have a chance to point for individuals and their contributions. In fact. in the elect the people they perceive as their friends. I guess I also hearings held on PACs by the House Administration find it very hard to understand why people who are Committee, we in variably fou nd that most PAC cont r i ~ supposed to believe in representative government and are butors are people who have never contributed to a political supposed to reject elitist concepts of telling others how to party, candidate, issue or campaign. W hat we have is a new live are the very ones who want to restrict political action. place for people to begin or to find an ingress into the To say to the doctor who contributes to AMPAC (the poli tical process. We would hope that some would progress American Medical Political Action Committee) or to the into political parties or into actual campaigns. But at least ,un ion member who contributes to the Teamsters that he'll this gives them a means of gelling in . PACs also have have to find a better way to participate smacks ofexclusivity. provided a way for people who might not have been Ripon Forum. If li miting PAC contributions would interested in some of the social issues both parties were mean wealthy candidates have an electoral advantage, as selling, but who, as a member of a union, corporation or some contend, then isn't the logical alternative a form of association, were more interested in their economic condi­ public financing for congressional campaigns? tion. T his has been an enormous force for good and has Frenzel. No. I wouldn't think so. F irst, you have to broadened the political base in the United States. figure out what's wrong. Ifthe system isn't broke. then don't Ripon Forum. T he argument has been made, though, fix it. Certainly there wou ld be a problem if wealthy that while PAC contributions to candidates in 1982 totalled individuals were able to spend as much money as they $87 million, up from $23 million just six years ago, wou ld like to buy an election. That, however, is a question PAC decision-making is not democratically controlled. that has to be taken up with the Supreme Court. And I am Rather, it is controlled centrally by re presenlalives here in not wholly persuaded that going toa partial system ofpublic Washington. fi nancing would induce the Supreme Court to believe that a Frenzel. Well so what? So are contributions to political person has less rights about promoting his candidacy unde r APRtL 1983 3 that system than he has under the presem one. refonns, but the House probably doesn't want the same Second, I believe that public financing is a far worse ones. Maybe the president wants something else. I think it's situation than individuals being able to spend a lot of going to be extraordinarily difficult to put together any money. At least you can occasionally defeat a wealthy legislation. A public financing bill may pass the House, but candidate. ISenatorl David Durenberger, R· Minn., did so it is extremely unlikely that it will be enacted into law.