Alan Keyes
May 8, 2000
The National Press Club, Washington, DC

Lawsuit against the Federal Election Commission press conference

Nancy Ross:

Good afternoon. My name is Nancy Ross and I want to welcome members of the Press, C-SPAN viewers and independent activists who are here today to a press briefing on the debates. It is being sponsored by CUIP, which is the Committee for a Unified Independent Party. CUIP is a non profit organization that works on reforming the political process, on restructuring how elections are conducted and is chaired by Dr. Lenora Filani who is here with us.

Today CUIP, along with Independent, Democratic and Republican voters and Independent parties, has filed a lawsuit challenging the Federal Election Commission's regulations that allow the exclusion of Independent candidates and minor parties from the debates. This suit also charges that these regulations permit illegal campaign contributions to the two major party candidates. The impact of these regulations are enormous. The debates are the most important campaign event in the election cycle. Millions of Americans watch them, they are the gateway to the White House, yet they exclude the voice of between a third and one half of the American population who now consider themselves to be Independents. There is something like 16 million Americans who are registered as Independents. That's an increase of 15 million people since 1960. And this only represents something like 24 states where they actually have party registration. The importance of the independent vote was also made clear during the Republican presidential Primary by both Senator John McCain and Ambassador Alan Keyes who we are very pleased is also with us today. In the year 2000, for the FEC regulations to exclude the Independents is not only illegal, it's undemocratic and it is simply un-American.

* * *
Alan Keyes:

Thank you very much. I want to begin my short remarks with several stipulations. First of all, I want to make it clear I'm here as a Republican. I have no intention of doing anything except to continue my work within the Republican Party on behalf of the Constitution and this nation.

However, if we really believe in Constitutional self-government, real self-government, then we must believe in the principle that, at the end of the day, it's all about presenting, fairly, choices--so that the people as provided in our electoral system can make those choices and give that choice the best judgment that they are capable of giving it. That presumes, of course, that they are aware of what the choices are going to be. And that's what, I think, this is essentially about.

We are right now faced with kind of a fiction in a lot of our politics. It is one that is promoted by the media and others, in which they do these phony polls, and then they come before the American people and say, "See? These are the folks who have support." Now, it turns out, that because of their censorship and the censorship of the process, a great many of the folks who are being polled aren't even aware of what the alternatives are. So you have a kind of a catch-22 situation, see? "We'll help to make sure people are aware of you if you reach a certain level in the polls," but you can't reach a certain level in the polls until people are aware of you. And into that catch-22 falls not the fate of candidates, because that's not what's important here; into it falls the integrity of the judgment of the American people and of the electoral process.

I believe, in fact, that good arguments can be made as to why the two party system may be better or worse, or this or that--but the point is, you can make the good arguments, but you've got to back them up with a good performance in an environment that provides a fair test for the judgement of the people. If the two party system cannot defend itself on a truly fair playing field, then it does not deserve to exist. And if it then erects all kinds of corrupt and limiting mechanisms in order to try to defend itself against that true test, at the end of the day, we all know what this feeds. It feeds cynicism, it feeds distrust, it feeds a sense on the part of many people in this country that in fact, our elections are a sham, that have no significance but are a manipulated outcome dictated in the end by those who already have the power and the money. That sense of cynicism will destroy our political system--no, it IS destroying it. And I think it's time we confront this fact. And that's why I'm here today.

I think it's not at all hard to imagine a system in which you have fair access for folks. Obviously, as everyone always points out, if you had a ballot with a hundred thousand candidates on it, people wouldn't be able to do much. That's why, however, we have a system that provides certain hurdles, you've got to get qualified in states around the country and so forth and so on. You set out those rules for everybody's benefit, and once folks have met the tests that have been established, that's the only objective criteria anyone should have to meet. And if we feel like too many folks are coming through and making the choices too garbled, then set the standards a little higher. But make sure that they are known beforehand, and that once folks have played by the rules and qualified as candidates at whatever level, they are not excluded from presentation to the people--particularly at those critical moments when folks are really focusing their attention on what's going on.

That is the significance, I believe, of presidential debates, other debates that occur in our electoral cycle. Most Americans are busy doing a lot of other things. We know this, don't we? They have got to do jobs, they have got to raise families, they have got to keep the country going. They can devote part of their time to their vocation of citizenship, and most do so when we get down to the crunch, the last two or three weeks before an election. In the course of that time, therefore, when things are coming to a head, the presidential debates serve as punctuation marks that focus the attention of folks--and very often, they're the ONLY times when a massive audience of the electorate gathers in order to make its judgment. At that point of their attention, is it really fair to have a process that by arbitrary and duplicitous means have excluded from the choice of the American people candidates duly qualified under the rules established in order to make sure we have an orderly process?

What is being done at the moment is manipulation; it is, in terms of its outcome and politics, corruption of our system. And I believe deeply that that corruption hurts us all. Whether we are Democrats or Republicans or Independents, whether we are part of the Libertarian Party or the Taxpayers Party or the Reform Party--it doesn't matter what our partisan label is. We should all of us, as Americans, have a concern that everything we do in our political process be done with a view to fairly presenting to the American people the real and serious choices that are available to them so that they can go into the polls and make their choice on a basis truly aware of the universe of alternatives.

That, in fact, if you think about it, is the prerequisite of freedom. We knew this, didn't we, when we were fighting against the Communists and all these people, and we would look at their sham elections where they chose some candidates in the back room--and we knew that it was phony! We knew it was false! We knew that it did not stand the test of real integrity! Are we going to just stand by now and let our system slide into the same ugly sham, which reduces our freedom to a myth, and, in the end, will lead us to a situation, I believe, where our distaste for that myth will simply lead us to give it up?

I think that would be a great tragedy. If we're to avoid that tragedy, I believe we have to fight together, without regard to views or partisan background, to make sure that this system is restored to full integrity so that everyone that qualifies, under the rules, is presented to the American people, and they have a chance to judge of their views and of the benefits they might provide to the American people.

In the name, therefore, of simple American fairness, I support this suit and I hope it will succeed.

Reporter: James Rosen with Fox News Channel with a question for Ambassador Keyes. Since, as you noted at the outset of your remarks, you are here in your capacity as an ongoing candidate for the Republican nomination, if the convention, as seems likely, will nominate Governor Bush as its candidate, as the Party's candidate, am I to understand that you would be unaffected by the outcome of this litigation even if it's successful, because you wouldn't be a third party candidate then?

Keyes: Well, step number one, if what your saying is: I "have no dog in this race," that is exactly right. I have none, as a candidate. I only have one as an American who believes deeply that we should not seek unfair advantages in these contests--no matter who we are. I want to see my party achieve victory based on what we have to offer this country and our ability to offer it with integrity; I don't want to see us achieve victory based on the fact that we are better at "rigging the game" than other people, that we can put our hands together in collusion with corrupt Democrats and keep others from being heard. Why should we be afraid to have people whose views we can, with integrity oppose, be heard by the American people? Is there something to be afraid of? I don't agree with Lenora Fillani about a lot of things. I wouldn't be the least bit afraid to debate her or anybody else about it because I believe that what I say makes sense.

If that's what these candidate believe, and I think that's the kind of strength we ought to have as Republicans, then why should we be afraid to have people stand on a platform with us and present to the American people, in a fair fashion, their different views? That's all I'm here about, because I think it's just a matter of fairness.

Reporter: So, is that another way of saying that if, as seems likely, Governor Bush gets the nomination at the party convention that you would not seek a third party route to the presidency in any way?

Keyes: Well, see, I don't see that these issues have anything to do with each other. Anything that I may or may not do at some point in my life with respect to being a Republican, third party, and all that, that has to do with issues, it has to do with principles, it has to do with the stand taken, by my party, on those issues of principle. I will be fighting very hard at the convention to make sure that the party stays true on the pro-life issue and other issues that are of deep importance to this nation. And if it does so, I see no reason why I would have anything to do with a third party.

On the other hand, some day, if there is some great departure, I'm an American and a human being--a person, I hope, of integrity to my God before I'm a partisan of any kind whatsoever. And so I will seek to do what I think is right, and to do what I think is right for the country, whatever vehicle I have to seek. But in the process--let's put it this way: it wouldn't matter. I could be absolutely sure of having the Republican nomination--and I guarantee you that even if I were, I would be standing here today, because I hate unfairness! I cannot stand the idea that we are allowing this system to be corrupted by power and manipulated in such a way, that the people in this country can't get a fair choice.

Reporter: I'm simply wondering if there are any circumstances under which, you might, directly, as a candidate at a podium, benefit from this litigation if it were successful.

Keyes: Well, at the moment, I can't imagine any.

Reporter: Russell Mulchiver from Corporate Crime Report. So let's say that you are a candidate in this election as a third party candidate, just hypothetically. If we should have presidential debates--the way a candidate, third party candidates, can get into the debate is if they have 15% in the popular polls where they ask registered voters, "If the election were held today, would you vote for Alan Keyes, Ralph Nader, Pat Buchanan, George Bush?" and so forth. Do you think that there should be any hurdle on popularity at the time of the debate? Should it be 10%, should it be 5%, should it be eliminated, and what standard would you set--or if I decided to run, could I just get in?

Keyes: No, I'll tell you something. First of all, there should be no reliance whatsoever on these phony, manipulated polls. It's the most dangerous thing we are doing in America. Most Americans don't understand how these polls are done, couldn't understand if they were manipulated and rigged. The minute you let them have any role in your process, you are ultimately turning the electoral system over to forces you can't control--do not understand?--and which may some day turn against you, in order to manipulate the system in a way that's adverse to the integrity of the outcome. Polls taken in that fashion should have nothing whatsoever to do with this, in my opinion.

But then you say, "Well, should we have one hundred thousand candidates--anybody walking off the street?" Of course not. But I don't think it's all that hard or requires much imagination. Let's see, we want to define in an objective way who will be able to participate in debates. How about people who are qualified to be on the ballot in this country, in states or a combination of states that would actually allow them to win an electoral college victory? Simple, constitutional, clear--doesn't allow for phony manipulation. And if you think that too many people are getting in, make the hurdles higher, state by state, in terms of that qualification, in order to weed out people who aren't serious and don't have real support.

I don't think we need a disorderly process. But the excuse that they're giving, that somehow you can't have an orderly process if you don't cheat, this is a lie. You can have a clear set of fair regulations that set the hurdles high enough so that the process is not a cumbersome nest, and you can do so in such a way that you advertise to everybody, "Here it is, and we won't move the goal post." See? That's what's been done here. They set them high, they believed that they had prevented folks from being able to do this. And then what happens? The Reform Party qualifies, and then you get people like the Taxpayers Party, the Conservative Party, qualifying now and so forth and so on. Well look, is it fair? I just ask any person out there. You set the rules, you make them hard enough, you think nobody's going to do it, and then somebody goes out and, against your best expectations, gets the support of enough people around the country to qualify--and then you want to cheat? You want to introduce some element that wasn't there before? You want to change the rules in order to make sure they get excluded? Nobody in this country can really believes that that's fair! What are we doing to ourselves?

Reporter: Alicia Montgomery from Salon.com. This question can go for Ambassador Keyes or Dr. Fillani. Both of you are sort of, you with your alliance with Pat Buchanan, he's a disaffected Republican; Ambassador Keyes, you're sort of considered as a disaffected Republican, even though you do represent a lot of the views that a core constituency of the Republican Party--do you think that if the two parties represented a broader range of views among the American people, that a lawsuit like this would be as consequential or even necessary?

Keyes: Well, I think that, one--take the Republican Party, for instance. As I go around the country, I see at the grassroots a broad spectrum of individuals. They have some common shared core principles, but it's a very diverse group of people. Is that diversity represented in the Republican Party's leadership? By no means whatsoever. So in a certain sense, you've got a grassroots not represented by the leadership structure in the parties, and I think that that, in part, is what then leads to the potential for disaffection.

I am not, by the way, at the moment at least, as a disaffected Republican. I think I speak for a lot of grassroots, mainstream Republican people. But I also think I speak for their sense of integrity and their sense of fairness, not just as partisans, but as Americans--and I think that, as the parties project an image of manipulative, power-hungry disregard for fairness and justice, they are turning off the American people, and it is just not right. We should not sit back and allow our allegiance to our system of self-government to be destroyed by a bunch of manipulative "leaders," who apparently care more for their own power and success then they do for the integrity of the political process. And that, I think, is a concern shared by a lot of Americans, in the Republican Party, in the Democrat Party. Regardless of their background, I think they want this process to be fair and they want the choices to be fairly presented.

Reporter: Ambassador Keyes, Brian Naylor from NPR. You took part in the Republican primary process, you took part in most, if not all the debates in that process. And these were not "phony polls," they were primaries in which your participation didn't seem to discernibly change your standing, your finish, in the polls. So I'm wondering, why can't an organization or a group say, "This is who we want to take part in our debates." What's wrong with that?

Keyes: Well, two things are true. First of all, the statement that it didn't discernibly affect the outcome is not true. Of course it did. It did in Iowa and it did in other places. Given the fact that the Republican debates were not presented to the mass audience of Americans, and therefore could not have been expected to effect the mass outcome, I thought we did very well. I certainly always won the debates among the people who watched and certainly won a lot of support which influenced my standing in the polls in each and every state where those debates occurred--we saw this. So it did have an impact. Did it have a decisive impact? No. Why? Because those debates were not presented to most Americans. You did notice, didn't you, that not a single one of the Republican debates was held on broadcast television? They were confined to the cable broadcast media, where you get a few hundred thousand people at best--and I won't say that that is intentional, although I have had people speculate that. You do know that one of the major differences between the cable audience and the broadcast audience is what, Lenora? The participation of which people in this country? Black Americans. Yes. Well, gosh, that had nothing to do with it.

So your statement is based on a false premise in that regard. Factually speaking, it did have an impact. Second, I don't think that, in point of fact, we are debating here whether the two parties can get together and, on any basis they choose, put their candidates in the same room, and so forth and so on. That's not what's happening in these debates. What's happening in these debates is they're standing up and saying, "Here are the non-partisan debates in which we are presenting the serious candidates for president on a non-partisan basis so that we can educate the people of this country in a fair fashion." Okay? If you're going to present a partisan brawl in which you have excluded anybody but your chosen few, I would say just do it! You have a right to do it, it's a free country! Don't pretend, however, to do it under a rubric of non-partisanship. Don't pretend to do it in a fashion that then uses monies that are supposed only to be used for non-partisan purposes. That's cheating. That's corruption. That's lying. That's an effort to manipulate the perception of the voters in order to favor your power. And it should not be allowed. And it should especially not be allowed in a way that is directly or indirectly financed by the very voters who are being duped in that process.

Reporter: Ambassador Keyes, one quick question. First of all, why your name doesn't appear on the list of plaintiffs, why you didn't technically join the lawsuit?

Keyes: I guess, as I understand it--you'll have to talk to these gentlemen [the lawyers] in terms of what they are doing--but I'm a Republican, I'm not an Independent voter, and so forth and so on. When this lawsuit was brought to my attention, it seemed to me to be the right direction to go in, and I support it. But I was not asked to join in any formal sense. If I had been, it's not clear to me I'd refuse. I'd be perfectly happy to join in as just a voter, not as anybody else, because I think that this is a matter that ought to be of serious concern to us as voters, as such. But there's no other reason than that.